Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to inform the House of the death of Roger Gresham Cooke, Esq., Member for Twickenham, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Concorde Aircraft

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the passenger surcharge obtainable by airlines on Concorde flights.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Neil Carmichael): Our studies and those of the manufacturers suggest that airlines should be able to charge a substantial premium for the benefits Concorde will offer. The size of this premium will depend on the airlines' judgment of how Concorde can most profitably be operated.

Mr. Sheldon: In view of the statements by responsible representatives of Pan American, is it not clear that the responsibility for going ahead with the whole project rested with the Conservative Party, which did not carry out the kind of studies which we would today regard as normal and essential? Will my hon. Friend go into this further and see whether he is to get the kind of surcharge which will make this a viable proposition?

Mr. Carmichael: The decision about a surcharge and how it will operate is one for the airlines, and there are many ways in which to arrange it. Some may decide to have a single class with a surcharge while others may decide to have different classes with a surcharge relating to each. I have no doubt that Concorde will be a profitable investment for the world's airlines.

Mr. Sheldon: asked the Minister of Technology when he intends to authorise further production models of Concorde.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): The release of further production authorities will be decided jointly by the British and French Governments in the light of the progress of the development programme.

Mr. Sheldon: Will my right hon. Friend make a statement to the House before proceeding further with this?

Mr. Benn: I will certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion. Six starts have been authorised, as the House knows. The next batch would be for a further four, to take place in the summer. Long-dated materials have been made available for the first seven to 10. The position is that I shall have to discuss this further with my French colleague before we make any more progress.

Mr. Palmer: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that the Concorde project is still highly favoured in Bristol?

Mr. Benn: I do not need to be reminded of that. If any hon. Member had urged again that the project should be cancelled, I intended to take the opportunity of saying that it was time that the country took pride in this brilliant achievement.

Industry (Assistance)

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the Yorkshire and Humberside region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to improve the current employment difficulties in Sunderland.

Mr. Fry: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the East Midlands region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

Mr. Mawby: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the South-West region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the North-Western region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the Northern region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Technology what steps he is taking to stimulate industrial expansion in the West-Midland region in view of the fall in employment that has occurred since 1966.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Technology (Mr. Eric Varley): The Government have taken a great number of important steps over the country as a whole to reduce the hardships and difficulties of redundancies and unemployment. We have now developed a wide and flexible range of measures of assistance to industry, from which the less prosperous areas of the country are now benefiting.

Mr. Shaw: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that the overriding need is for action to get rid of the continued stagnation of the economy of the country as a whole and the widespread lack of confidence by industry, which now restrains industry from making investment and is the real cause of the stagnation in the regions?

Mr. Varley: I could not accept any of that. The hon. Member oversimplifies the matter. He fails to understand some of the factors and forces which have been having an influence. We now have a healthy economy and a balance of payments surplus, something

that hon. Members opposite did not experience in their last years of office. On the other hand, we have in every region of Britain a structure of industry, and, therefore, employment which is much more soundly based.

Mr. Fry: Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the regional employment situation, plus his recent inability to grant an i.d.c. in Raunds and Wellingborough—where one firm says that orders will now go to Belgium—will not only hinder much-needed diversification of industry in my constituency, but reflects the complete lack of confidence by the business community in the Government?

Mr. Varley: I cannot discuss individual i.d.c. cases, because to do so is not our practice. The hon. Member does a disservice to the East Midlands region, which I, too, represent, by suggesting that it is a depressed area. It is of course, not a depressed area, but a very prosperous area. Although there are difficulties in certain sections, by and large it is healthy.

Mr. Mawby: As unemployment in the South-West is about three times greater than it was in 1966, and as all the talk has been not about unemployment but about redeployment, can the Minister say where these jobs have been redeployed to?

Mr. Varley: I do not deny that there are problems in the South-West. I know that the hon. Member and some of my hon. Friends who represent that part of the country are continually making representations to us, but this is really a very difficult matter. As I understand it, some hon. Members opposite would like to cut back on assistance to industry in development areas, and if that were done the position would be even worse than it is.

Mr. Blaker: As so-called incentives to industry now cost the taxpayer nearly 18s. a week for every family in the country, how does the Minister explain the fact that in the North-West region there are more than 100,000 fewer people in employment than there were three years ago?

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying the changes which have taken place. There are several changes. More people are remaining in full-time


education than was the case a few years ago; certainly more people are retiring before what we regard as the normal retiring age; and there have been tremendous increases in productivity. In the North-West generally we refused to accept the Hunt Committee recommendation that Merseyside should be rescheduled. We are about to designate North-East Lancashire as an intermediate area.

Mr. Elliott: Is the Minister aware that the measures of which he is speaking have failed in the Northern region, where we have double the normal national unemployment? Can he say anything about the inquiry which his Department is making into the effectiveness of grants to development areas?

Mr. Varley: The investment grant scheme is under review. I think that the hon. Gentleman to some extent is anticipating the debate in which, no doubt, he will take part later today. I have no doubt that had it not been for our development area policies and vast assistance to industry, the North-East would be in a much more difficult position.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: I understood the hon. Gentleman to say that for some five years the present Government have been taking steps to bring about a rise in the level of employment, which in fact for six years exactly the opposite has been taking place. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the process will be reversed?

Mr. Varley: The hon. Gentleman's Question specifically mentions the West Midlands. That is a very prosperous region. However, the hon. Gentleman is over-simplifying the matter. What is really happening is a massive structural change in industry, and as a consequence the employment prospects are much more soundly based in that region than was previously the case.

Mr. Ford: Would my hon. Friend convey to his right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that in order to improve and assist the industrial environment, and thereby employment, in Bradford, it is necessary to push on with the greatest urgency with the improvement of road communications, particularly from the North-West?

Mr. Varley: The question of road communications is one for my right hon.
Friend the Minister of Transport, but I hope to go to Bradford later this week and perhaps I shall have an opportunity to look at the situation for myself.

Mr. Ridley: How can the Minister be so complacent when the record of the present Government is that they have spent £300 million a year on development area policies, there have been 300,000 fewer jobs in the development areas as a result, and the rate of unemployment has doubled?

Mr. Varley: I should like to know from the Opposition exactly what their policy is. It is not a question of complacency by the Government about the development areas. I know what would happen if hon. Members opposite had their way: there would be a vast reduction in aid to the development areas.

Mr. McNamara: Is my hon. Friend aware that on the north bank of Humberside we are grateful for having been designated as an intermediate area? May I ask what steps are being taken by local business men generally to take advantage of this new situation to promote employment in the area, in view of our heavy unemployment?

Mr. Varley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. As he says, we are taking steps to designate certain parts of Yorkshire and Humberside as an intermediate area. Inquiries are coming through, and they are encouraging.

Coal-Fired Power Stations

Mr. Ashton: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will withhold approval from proposals by the Central Electricity Generating Board to convert coal-fired power stations to oil.

The Paymaster-General (Mr. Harold Lever): As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Normanton (Mr. Albert Roberts) on 9th February, the C.E.G.B. applied, on 3rd February, for approval, under Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act, 1909, to convert the Tilbury "B" Generating Station to burn oil. This is under consideration, and the implication for the coal industry will be taken into account before a decision is taken. I will bear in mind the anxieties about the future of the coal industry which my hon. Friend has expressed and of which I myself am very much aware.

Mr. Ashton: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that he is taking notice of pages 16 and 24 of the fuel policy White Paper which refer to security of supplies, the cost of overseas foreign currency and the fact that oil would be used only in exceptional circumstances such as pollution or really exceptional cost-effectiveness circumstances?

Mr. Lever: I always spend my life in intense receptiveness to all the words of all the paragraphs of all the White Papers relevant to this matter. I can promise my hon. Friend that I will give special attention to that point. But I hope he will bear in mind what I told the House, that at the present time the demand for coal by the generating stations exceeds the capacity of the coal industry to deliver, and that there is no fall-off in demand from the C.E.G.B. The demand is running at record levels at present.

Sir J. Eden: Is it not a fact that these stations, the conversion of which has recently been authorised, have been in the C.E.G.B. programme for about 15 years?

Mr. Lever: The conversions were not recently authorised but were authorised many years ago, I believe by the predecessor Government. They were not authorised by us. I am making no point of this, but the reason for now operating this permission is the difficulty of getting adequate coal supplies.

Gas Explosions

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Technology if he will institute a publicity campaign to draw attention to the dangers which can arise from the use of gas appliances.

Mr. Harold Lever: The gas industry and equipment manufacturers already provide, in various ways, ample guidance about the correct use of appliances. I shall consider whether anything more needs to be done when I have the further information which I told the House on 26th January I had called for.—[Vol. 794, c. 236.]

Mr. Dodds-Parker: Surely the right hon. Gentleman ought to take action before that, especially in view of the fact in the West Midlands there have been a that since the introduction of natural gas

number of explosions? For instance, recently a house in Malvern blew up. The right hon. Gentleman ought to redouble his efforts now without waiting.

Mr. Lever: I have a personal preference for getting information first and then taking action. I gather that the hon. Gentleman wants me to act in the reverse sequence.

Mr. Barnett: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that it is time we had rather more publicity? Far too many accidents are happening in our region in particular. Would he, therefore, consider the question of an independent inquiry and in the meantime suspend all conversions?

Mr. Lever: As to the first point, I am not responsible for publicity. I am responsible for getting answers to my questions in a reliable form. My hon. Friend—I do not blame him for this—is relying on general impressions. I have to have something more definite than that before I can take additional action to the full range of action which is in course at the present time.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: asked the Minister of Technology if he will issue general directions to the gas boards to ensure immediate attention, day or night, to any report of a suspected gas leak.

Mr. Harold Lever: No, Sir. All boards already operate a 24-hour service to deal with emergency work and attention to leaks is given the highest priority. If the hon. Member has any case of delay in mind, I shall be glad to ask the board concerned to look into it.

Mr. Dodds-Parker: I am grateful for the fact that, unlike what he said in a previous reply, the right hon. Gentleman is not to establish a Royal Commission to look into the matter, but there have been cases in which there have been hours, if not days, of delay.

Mr. Lever: I am continuing the policy of seeking information first and taking action immediately thereafter.

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will give a general direction to the Gas Council to slow down the natural gas conversion programme.

Mr. Harold Lever: No, Sir.

Mr. Lane: We all want the natural gas programme to succeed, but will the Minister bear in mind that there is much dissatisfaction among consumers in areas which have been converted? What positive steps have been taken to make certain that the rest of the programme goes more smoothly?

Mr. Lever: The maximum efforts are being made all the time to improve the conversions and to remedy completely the defects which arise, inevitably, from the conversion of, in many cases, antiquated apparatus to natural gas. There is ample evidence that the users are satisfied in the greatest number of cases, but there are, inevitably, some difficulties, and the Gas Council is doing its utmost to improve continuously its means of servicing.

Mr. Moyle: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many people want to see the momentum of the conversion programme maintained to the utmost, because they will then find it easier to install gas-fired appliances, as opposed to oil-fired appliances. Perhaps that is what hon. Gentlemen opposite have in mind.

Mr. Lever: I am aware of the situation which my hon. Friend has indicated, which, unlike the suggestion that we should slow up or stop conversions, makes sound economic sense.

Mr. David Howell: If the Minister will not give a directive to the Gas Council, will he at least point out to it the obvious unwisdom of attempting to push through the programme at this faster speed during a very cold period, as this causes more suffering and difficulty, as it has done to many of my constituents?

Mr. Lever: All aspects of the matter are kept in mind by the gas Council, which makes every effort, on the one hand, to pursue a logical course of conversion and, on the other, to help people who have difficulties which, arise, inevitably, from it.

Mr. Barnett: Despite the obvious economic sense of the programme, with which I agree, will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that there is considerable fear among large numbers of people who are having these conversions done, and that it is not enough simply to have an assurance from the Gas Council, or

from local gas boards, when there are constant leaks and explosions? Will my right hon. Friend reconsider this matter, with a view to holding an independent inquiry in order to safeguard millions of £s of national assets which are at stake?

Mr. Lever: As my hon. Friend knows, I am having a very exhaustive and speedy inquiry made within the Department and by the Gas Council. I shall take whatever action is necessary to ensure that the Gas Council fully discharges the kind of responsibilities which my hon. Friend has in mind.

Sir J. Eden: Is it not a fact that there is a far higher rate of call-back than had originally been expected? Is he satisfied that the conversion teams are as trained as they possibly can be? Would it not be desirable to take a little longer in preparing them for the task which they have in mind?

Mr. Lever: I do not say that this is the complete answer, but there is no sign of any increase in the proportion of complaints or difficulties, many of which arise from the fact that the apparatus being converted is often inadequate even for the use of town gas, and special difficulties are met with in relation to these conversions. We are dealing with this, and we shall intensify our efforts to improve the service that we are giving.

BAC 3–11 Aircraft

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Technology when he will announce his decision upon the request of the British Aircraft Corporation for a Government contribution towards the development of the BAC 3–11

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Technology whether he has now reached a decision on the proposal for a BAC 3–11 aircraft.

Mr. Robert Howarth: asked the Minister of Technology what request he has received from the British Aircraft Corporation for financial support for the building of the BAC 3–11; and if he will make a statement on the prospects of sales of this aircraft as compared with those of the A300 European Airbus.

Mr. Benn: The British Aircraft Corporation has requested a Government contribution of 50 per cent. of the estimated


launching costs of £150 million, and financial help with production.
Discussions between my staff and the company have not yet been completed. Sales prospects are among the most important aspects being considered.

Mr. Corfield: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how disastrous delay in decision making can be to the best of aircraft projects? I am sure he will agree that that has been the experience in the past. Will he also bear in mind that, despite record levels of exports, present exports are of items designed many years ago and that there is precious little in the pipeline at the moment?

Mr. Benn: I am very well aware of the dangers of delay. But the party opposite cannot have it both ways. They cannot go around every weekend attacking Government support for industry and then say in the House, when others do not listen, that we should be providing, with. out a full economic analysis, the amount of money involved in this aircraft.

Mr. Howarth: Can my right hon. Friend indicate which version of the Rolls-Royce engine is given for the project at present? In other words, is it an engine which is available without development or one which also needs development support?

Mr. Benn: B.A.C. is considering alternative engine possibilities for the aircraft. The amount of money that would be involved in developing them would depend on the other applications for that type of engine.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether his inability to make a decision quickly on the proposal is to any extent caused by the proposed short-range version of the Boeing 747 jumbo jet and the effect such an aircraft might have on the airbus market?

Mr. Benn: I am not unable to reach a decision on the matter. The proposal reached me from B.A.C. only a short time ago. I have laid down that I will not consider new aircraft proposals unless I am satisfied that the firm is prepared and able to put up a substantial sum of the

money—in this case 50 per cent.—and the market is secure for the launching of the aircraft. I absolutely deny that there has been any delay by me. I am, as the House would expect, evaluating a proposal that has come to me from the firms.

Mr. Corfield: Will the Minister bear in mind that I asked for a decision? I did not ask for money.

Mr. Benn: I appreciate that. At the same time, in order to spend the money in a way that accords with what the House as a whole wants, I must have time to evaluate the matter properly.

British Steel Corporation

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Technology what estimate he has made of the percentage dividend to be paid by the British Steel Corporation on its public dividend capital in respect of the financial years 1968–69 and 1969–70, respectively.

Mr. Harold Lever: The corporation has not yet made proposals though in its annual report it states its intention of proposing that no dividend should be paid for 1968–69.

Mr. Lane: To help the corporation towards profitability, will the right hon. Gentleman at least undertake that in the remaining months of the present Government there will be less interference with the industry by the Government and other bodies than there has been in the past two years?

Mr. Lever: I am sure that for the remaining life of the present Parliament, and for the remaining period of the Government's occupation of office, which will presumably come thereafter, there will be no improper interference with the corporation, nor has there been anything more than the discharge of the statutory responsibilities which the House has placed on my Department.

Sir J. Eden: Does not the fact that again no dividend is to be proposed this year indicate that there is full justification for the Opposition's criticism of the p.d.c. device? What would have been the amount paid if the whole £834 million of commencing capital debt had been left as fixed interest charges?

Mr. Lever: To the contrary, the events of the past two years have shown how


right we were in saying that the industry should not be burdened with fixed interest charges, especially in the first year or two of its life, and especially having regard to the cyclical nature of the steel industry. Far from justifying the hon. Gentleman's strictures, this completely negates them.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Does my right hon. Friend agree that in spite of the last increase the price of steel generally is lower than that of our competitors abroad, and that it is far better sometimes to have a lower price to industry than simply to make a profit?

Mr. Lever: My hon. Friend raises wide issues difficult to comprehend within a supplementary reply. However, it is true that our prices, even after the recent rise, are below the world market price and that for a period before that British industry as a whole has had immense advantage from the low price charged by the Steel Corporation.

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Technology why steel production in 1969, at 26·5 million tons, was lower than in 1965 at 27·01 million tons; and whether he will make a statement on nationalisation progress to date.

Mr. Benn: Output in 1969, the second highest ever, would have been a record but for losses of about 1 million tons, mainly from unofficial strikes. Nationalisation has enabled good progress to be made towards re-building and expanding the steel industry, as is shown in the annual report.

Sir G. Nabarro: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that these turgid results from the nationalised steel industry compare very unfavourably with, for example, those of our principal shipbuilding competitor, Japan, which has increased its steel output from 25 million tons in 1962 to 72 million tons this year, almost treble in eight years, while we creep along a plateau?

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Gentleman thought that the annual report was likely to be turgid, he might have suggested to his right hon. Friends that they should await the report before debating the subject. There was a debate on the steel industry just before the annual report was made available.

Mr. Ronald Atkins: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why Japan is doing so well is that 15 years ago the Japanese Government encouraged private industry in Japan to invest in the steel industry, and that with that government encouragement Japan today can produce her present output? Would my right hon. Friend agree that when hon. Gentlemen opposite were in government they did nothing to help to increase capacity?

Mr. Benn: It is true, as my right hon. Friend said during the debate, that the £900 million investment programme over the next five years, which has been approved by the Steel Corporation, gives us a real opportunity of catching up our backlog.

Sir K. Joseph: Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro)? He completely evaded it.

Mr. Benn: During the eight-year period in which the hon. Gentleman drew a comparison between Japanese performance and our own, we were building steel with capital investment which had been authorised in earlier years, and no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn from the nationalisation of the steel industry about the very poor performance of the steel industry in this country under private ownership compared with that of the Japanese.

Industrial Development Certificates

Mr. Dewar: asked the Minister of Technology what plans he has to review the basis on which industrial development certificates are issued.

Mr. Varley: No, Sir. The policy operates successfully and no changes are contemplated at present.

Mr. Dewar: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that there will be no tailing off in Scotland's percentage of the total factory floor space completions in the next year?

Mr. Varley: I think that I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that certainly in the congested areas i.d.c.s will be looked at very critically. Scotland's share fell last year, but short-term comparisons are misleading. In the period


1966–1969, for example, i.d.c. approvals for Scotland rose by more than half compared with 1962–65.

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Minister of Technology what recent evaluation he has made of the effectiveness of the industrial development certificate policy.

Mr. Benn: I maintain a continuing concern with the effectiveness of i.d.c. policy.

Mr. Maclennan: In view of my right hon. Friend's study of this, can he reassure those hon. Members, particularly Scottish Members, who have expressed concern that, due to pressure by the Opposition, there may be some relaxation of this policy, that it has played a crucial role in expanding industrial opportunities, particularly in Scotland?

Mr. Benn: No i.d.c. has ever been refused in Scotland and the Scottish share rose by more than half in 1966–69 compared with 1962–65, although there was some falling off last year as a proportion of the whole. I share my hon. Friend's view that the Opposition's policy towards development areas would hit Scotland very hard.

Development Areas

Mr. Dewar: asked the Minister of Technology what representations he has received from Scottish organisations advocating a change from the present system of investment incentives in the developmen areas to free depreciation and tax allowances; and what replies he has sent.

Mr. Varley: None, Sir.

Mr. Dewar: Will my hon. Friend accept that this demonstrates the very widespread satisfaction in Scotland with the Government's efforts in regional development and the very great degree of disquiet over the kind of generalities talked on regional development in certain Tory quarters?

Mr. Varley: Many people would like to know exactly what the policies of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are on development areas.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Since investment grants are designed to attract capital-intensive industries to the development areas, is not it only natural that their

availability should have coincided in Scotland with the loss of 67,000 male jobs? Will the Minister confirm that the Government's enthusiasm for investment grants demonstrates their desire to achieve an even faster rate of rundown in male jobs in Scotland in the future?

Mr. Varley: I reject all that. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have a tendency to underestimate the situation and the real structural changes taking place in Scotland and the regions generally.

Manufacturing Industry (Stocks)

Mr. Silvester: asked the Minister of Technology (1) what was the value of the physical increase of manufacturing industry's stocks at 1963 prices in 1964; and what was the comparable figure for 1969;

(2) what percentage of the gross domestic product was represented by stock accumulation of manufacturing industry in 1964; and what was the comparable figure for 1969.

Mr. Michael Shaw: asked the Minister of Technology what percentage of the gross domestic product was represented by the stock accumulation of manufacturing industry in the last half of 1968; and what was the comparable figure for the last half of 1969.

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Technology what was the level of stocks in 1964 and 1969, respectively, at current market prices and as a percentage of the gross national product; and how this compares with the level of investment in the manufacturing and construction industries for both these years.

Mr. Blaker: asked the Minister of Technology to what he attributes the fall in the value of stocks held by manufacturing industry in the third quarter of 1969.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Alan Williams): With permission I will circulate the figures requested in the OFFICIAL REPORT. There was no fall in the value of manufacturers' stocks in the third quarter of 1969. The fall in the volume of stocks is likely to have been caused by several factors, including, probably,


liquidity constraints, adjustments to counteract high stockbuilding in the first quarter of 1969 and expectations of future falls in the prices of certain raw materials.

Mr. Silvester: Is it not a matter of concern that the fall in the real value of stocks should have occurred, as there is likely to be a a strain on the balance of payments when the economy picks up again, as we hope it will soon?

Mr. Williams: Stock-building is highly cyclical and fluctuates very considerably. Preliminary information suggests that it may have risen again during the last quarter of 1969—the actual figures are not yet available—at the very time when the balance of payments figures were also improving rapidly.

Mr. Shaw: Does the Minister consider that when import deposits are raised and the credit squeeze limitations are removed, this will have a very marked effect on the position?

Mr. Williams: The hon. Gentleman is entitled to that interpretation. It may well be that industry is learning to manage with lower ratios of stock. In the past we have tended to have rather high stock levels in this country.

Mr. Ridsdale: As the level of the value of stocks today is half what it was in 1964 as a proportion of the gross national product, will the Minister say what the likely trend is in 1970?

Mr. Williams: According to the information I have, that was certainly not the case. The total value of stocks—manufacturing, distribution and merchants'—was 41·2 per cent. of G.D.P. at current prices in 1964 and is 40·9 per cent. at current prices today.

Mr. Blaker: To what extent does the Minister believe that the favourable balance of payments of the past six months is connected with a rate of stock accumulation below the average?

Mr. Williams: Hardly at all, since the actual import content of stock-building

is in any case quite small. It is hard to give a precise figure as it depends on the precise stocks being built up, but it ranges between one-fifth and one-third. The figures we are talking about are not very material in relation to the size of balance of payments improvement we have achieved.

Mr. Barnett: Is not the stock reduction something to be welcomed? Should not we ignore some of the underlying party political points made by hon. Gentlement opposite, with the implication on the balance of payments? Would not it be better to look at our stock ratios in relation to international ratios, rather than just our own, when we have carried much higher stocks than were warranted by good management in this country?

Mr. Williams: Yes, my hon. Friend is quite right in indicating that there has been a considerable improvement in methods of stock control in this country. This is a highly desirable development which I am sure hon. Members on both sides will welcome.

Sir K. Joseph: We would all welcome the fall in the secular proportion of stocks held to output, but is the hon. Gentleman telling the House that, in the Government's view, no upturn in stockbuilding is expected during the current year, even if the G.N.P. turns up?

Mr. Williams: I am not telling the House any such thing. I have already said that in the last quarter—and as yet we have not had the actual figures—it may well be that there has been a rise, but, because of the ratio to which I referred of one-third to one-fifth of import content, it still should not be significant in relation to a balance of payments surplus at the current level. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman did not volunteer that the opposite would have been the case when the balance of payments situation was good in 1968; then he could have made the same point in our favour.

Following is the information:


MANUFACTURERS' STOCKS



Value of physical increase at constant (1963) prices


£million
As percentage of gross domestic product at 1963 factor cost


1964
411
1·5


1968—Second half, seasonally adjusted
30
0·2


1969—First three quarters, seasonally adjusted*
122
0·5


1969—Third quarter, seasonally adjusted*
-30
-0·4


TOTAL STOCKS


The value of total stocks held in the economy (by manufacturers, distributors and merchants etc.) was £12,103 million at the end of 1964, 41·2 per cent. of gross national product during 1964; corresponding figures for the year ended 30th September, 1969* are £15,533 million and 40·9 per cent.


INVESTMENT


Investment by manufacturing and construction industries was £1,346 million in 1964; in the year ended 30th September, 1969* investment by manufacturing industry was £1,702 million; the latest available figure of investment in the construction industry is £161 million in 1968.


*Information for the fourth quarter of 1969 is not yet available.

Manufacturing and Construction Industries

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Technology what was the average level of investment over the last five years in the manufacturing and construction industries at current market prices and as a percentage of the gross national product for Germany, Japan, and the United Kingdom and how this compares with

Fixed capital expenditure by manufacturing and construction industries
Government expenditure*



Amount
As proportion of gross national product at current factor cost
Amount
As proportion of gross national product at current factor cost



Per cent.

Per cent.


Germany (Average 1963–67)
…
29.00†
7·6
156.89†
41·0


Japan (Average 1962–66)
…
2,417‡§
9·5
5,746‡
22·5


United Kinadom (Average 1963–67)
…
1,462║
4·7
11,718||
37·5


*Government expenditure has been taken as the total of central government and local authorities spending on current account and on capital formation, excluding trading enterprises. For Japan government expenditure excludes capital formation in stocks but includes fixed capital formation in dwellings.


†Thousand million deutschmarks.


‡Thousand million yen.


§Investment figures for Japan are available only for financial years beginning 1st April.


||£ million.

Source: Returns made to O.E.C.D. by member countries which are summarised in "National Accounts of O.E.C.D. Countries, 1958–1967" published in 1969.

the average level of Government expenditure in each of these countries, from information available to him from international sources.

Mr. Alan Williams: With permission, I will circulate the available information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The figures do not suggest that a high level of manufacturing investment is associated with a low level of Government expenditure.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is not the level of Government expenditure in Japan exactly half and the level of manufacturing investment exactly double what it is in this country? Does the Minister still say that there is no relationship between these two factors?

Mr. Williams: In the five years for which figures are available, for Germany both sets of figures have been higher, so it is difficult to establish any causal relationship between the figures.

Mr. Ridley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the prognostications of the Government that investment will rise this year have been directly contradicted by the C.B.I., which fears a further fall? Has he checked his figures again to see who is right?

Mr. Williams: Has the hon. Gentleman checked his reading to ensure that he is right? As I understand it, the dispute is not about whether or not there will be a fall—I do not think that anyone is suggesting a fall—but about how large the rise will be. The C.B.I. confirms that there will continue to be an increase, and I should have thought that both sides of the House would welcome this in the national interest.

Following is the available information:

Industry (Employment of Graduates)

Mr. Hugh Jenkins: asked the Minister of Technology what has been the effect of his intervention in various industries in terms of the number of graduates employed, of pay received by qualified staff and in other ways; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Benn: I am glad to say that there is some evidence of an increase since 1965 in the total number of graduates employed in industry; and this is certainly true of employment of qualified scientists and engineers, particularly in the electronics and machine tool industries.

Mr. Jenkins: Is not this directly related to Government support of and intervention in these industries? Will not my right hon. Friend take pride in this rather than in the supersonic white elephant?

Mr. Benn: I am sorry that my hon. Friend weakened the impact of what he said by adding another point relevant to another Question. The number of engineering and science graduates having their first appointment in industry was 60 per cent. higher in 1967–68 than in 1964–65, which relates back to the expansion of the universities. In some key industries such as machine tools and electronics there was an increase of about one-third in 1968 over the 1965 figure.

Mr. Fortescue: Is not the increase of science graduates in industry a direct reflection of the decrease of science graduates in education? Is the Minister co-ordinating his efforts with those of the Secretary of State for Education and Science to see that our schools and universities are not denuded of science graduates?

Mr. Benn: We are trying to encourage more people to go into science and engineering at school and to this extent I coordinate with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Nobody disputes that we want to get more engineers and scientists into industry. When they get there we hope that they will get responsibility at an earlier age, for it was that more than

anything else that appeared to be influencing those who emigrated at an earlier period.

Industrial Reorganisation Corporation

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Technology how much the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation will lend to industry in 1970

Mr. Benn: The nature of the I.R.C.'s work makes it difficult to forecast its needs with precision. But the hon. Member will find in the White Paper "Public Expenditure 1968–69 to 1973–74" (Cmnd. 4234) that the estimate for the financial year 1970–71 is £34 million.

Mr. Baker: Is the Minister satisfied that this money will be well invested, bearing in mind…Yes, I will have a glass of water, please. Because of the irritation in my throat, I will circulate my supplementary question.

Mr. Benn: I think it is clear that the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question came from his heart. There was no evidence of its coming from anywhere else.
We are satisfied that the contribution made by the I.R.C. in helping with restructuring and in support of industrial expansion is a very sound investment, and there is a great deal of practical evidence to support that view.

Sir K. Joseph: Is it expected that there will be any more episodes like the recent one when the I.R.C. solemnly lent money to the wealthiest company in the country, I.C.I., to help restructure some part of the industry with which I.C.I. was involved?

Mr. Benn: The right hon. Gentleman will have to make up his mind whether he believes, as is said very often by himself and his hon. Friends at the weekends, that industrialists should be brought into participate in Government decision-making. We decided that we would establish the I.R.C. and then ask a very distinguished body of industrialists quite independently to decide what projects they would support. It is no good saying that we should bring businessmen into Whitehall and then, when we devolve responsibilities on these industrialists, saying it is totally wrong.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Baker, Question No. 20—we hope.

Textile Industry

Mr. Kenneth Baker: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects the study being made by his Department in the British textile industry will be completed; and if it will be published.

Mr. Harold Lever: I hope to conclude my review in time for a comprehensive statement to be made on the I.C.I. proposals before the end of next month.

Jute (Import Quotas)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to be able to announce the outcome of his discussions regarding the level of jute import quotas for the second year of operation.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Ernest A. Davies): An announcement on the jute import quotas for the quota year was made by the Ministry of Technology on 6th February. It has been decided that the quotas should remain unchanged for the year beginning 1st May, 1970, and should be allocated to those who received a quota allocation in 1969–70.

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: We are, of course, relieved that the Government have finally been persuaded to freeze the jute import quota. But, as there have been approximately 1,000 redundancies in the industry in Scotland during the past year alone, is not it desirable that either the right hon. Gentleman or the Prime Minister should come to Dundee soon and explain what the Prime Minister meant when he said that jute jobs would be safe under Labour?

Dr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to take issue with my right hon. Friend, I am sure that he would get more than a sufficient answer for him to digest. This is the third occasion on which the hon. Member has sought to link quotas with the employment situation in Dundee. Broadly speaking, employment in the Dundee area has been maintained despite the shrinkage of the jute industry. The Government are very much alive to employment problems in that area and are keeping a constant watch on the situation. Both sides of the industry have acknowledged that the introduction of quotas has

had no effect on the employment situation in Dundee. The hon. Gentleman really should take note of that.

Handley Page Aircraft (Victor Bombers)

Mr. Corfield: asked the Minister of Technology whether he is satisfied that Handley Page Aircraft now has an adequate staff, particularly in the sphere of design, satisfactory to carry out their contract with his Department for the conversion of Victor bombers; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Carmichael: Yes, Sir. The firm is making satisfactory progress on the initial development work.

Mr. Corfield: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that it will be possible, without subcontracting, to complete the design work that is still outstanding?

Mr. Carmichael: There is a possibility that subcontracting may be necessary, but the firm is now actively engaged in recruitment, and I expect it to be successful in arranging for the necessary design and other resources to be available in time.

Mr. Snow: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the worst possible losses, both in design and production staff, occurred during the last two years of Conservative Administration—a blow from which the industry found it very difficult to recover?

Mr. Carmichael: We hope, with the new work coming into the firm and the reconstruction of the firm, that this will be a thing of the past, and that the firm will move on to a secure future.

Mr. Goodhew: Why are the Government taking so long to confirm the orders and place contracts for this job? Does the hon. Gentleman realise that had this been confirmed at an earlier stage it might have got Handley Page through a difficult time? As it is, the Government have made life much more difficult for the firm by delaying for so long.

Mr. Carmichael: It is not easy to get this question settled as quickly as the hon. Gentleman suggests. The firm has contract cover for the work it is doing, and discussions are going on with the Department for further work. I am well


aware of the importance of further contract cover being given or allocated, and this is being discussed within the Department.

Blyth (Unemployment)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Technology if he will indicate the number of new jobs definitely listed for the Blyth constituency in 1970; and what account has been taken of pending pit closures in this estimate.

Mr. Varley: Jobs in prospect expected to arise during the next four years in the Blyth constituency in authorised new industrial buildings and in existing buildings taken over by manufacturing industry are estimated to be 3,490, including 2,480 for males. I regret it is not known how many of these will become available during 1970. The Government's regional policy in areas such as Blyth takes account of the need for new jobs to make good losses resulting from pit closures.

Mr. Milne: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply about the number of jobs listed, but is he aware that the period is four years, and that there is a degree of urgency about this matter? Will his Department look into the possibility of seeing that the bulk of these jobs is available during the next few months?

Mr. Varley: I am sorry that I cannot give more precise information, or the precise information asked for by my hon. Friend, but I shall look into the point raised by him.

North-East (Development Districts)

Mr. Milne: asked the Minister of Technology if he will give details of the average lengths of time taken by firms to move into development districts in the North-East and elsewhere following finalising of arrangements and agreements in regard to grants and loans by the various Government Departments concerned.

Mr. Varley: This information is not available. Firms do not necessarily await a decision on applications for assistance under the Local Employment Acts before starting projects in the development areas; and investment grants towards expenditure on plant and machinery for

such projects are not paid until after the expenditure has been incurred.

Mr. Milne: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of the jobs listed for the Blyth constituency and elsewhere are delayed because one or two firms in particular are dragging their feet on this matter? Will he see that in the negotiations with those firms about development grants the speeding-up of the timetable between the payment of the grant and the actual employment of the people by the firms is looked into very closely, indeed? This would help the unemployment figures considerably.

Mr. Varley: Our information is that the position varies from case to case. In handling these cases we keep that matter under constant review. If my hon. Friend knows of particular cases, and if he lets me have details, I shall look into them.

Motor Car Industry

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Technology in view of the further disputes and stoppages affecting motor car production, increases in steel prices, wage and salary advances and continuing Government restraints on home market production, what estimate of motor car output and prices he has now made for 1970, both for export and home markets; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology what is the latest estimate he has made of United Kingdom production of motor cars for home and export markets during 1970.

Mr. Benn: I expect production for both home and export markets to reach at least the lower end of the range forecast by the Motor Manufacturing E.D.C., i.e., an increase of about 10 per cent. in total production over 1969. As to prices, I would refer to the reply given to the hon. Member on 16th February. On the general situation, I have nothing to add to the very full statement which I made in the House in the debate on 11th February.—[Vol. 796, c. 30–1; Vol. 795, c. 1280–94.]

Sir G. Nabarro: What level of stoppages due to strikes has the right hon. Gentleman taken into account in formulating the estimate which he has just


given? Secondly, what does he think about the increase in prices of up to £100 per motor car, due to the inflationary policies of the Government, all announced last Friday? What influence will that have on the future trend of export sales?

Mr. Benn: I can only repeat that the forecast was made by the E.D.C., which is made up, of course, of representatives of the manufacturers and the unions and independent people, as well as the representative from my Department. The forecast is for a 10 per cent. increase this year on the basis of the existing economic environment. Beyond that, all forecasts are bound to be uncertain to some extent; but this forecast is very encouraging.

Mr. Biffen: In view of the highly arbitrary and selective nature of credit control which is contained within the present hire-purchase restrictions, will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider his rather disappointing earlier attitude and give the motor industry some go ahead by relieving it from these restrictions?

Mr. Benn: I have not changed my view from that which I expressed on 11th February. However, the hon. Gentleman does less than justice to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has been developing credit measures which are rather more general in character and offer some reasonable hope that the selective measures which the motor industry has found difficult to meet will in future be less necessary to the management of the economy.

Mr. Robert Howarth: Would my right hon. Friend say whether there were any price increases for motor cars during the period of the Tory Government and, if so, what the reasons for them were?

Mr. Benn: This is what makes it difficult to have discussions about economic planning decisions across the Floor of the House. To hear the questions of hon. Members opposite, one would think that there had never been any strikes or price increases under the Tory Government.

Sir K. Joseph: We are glad to know that the Minister expects at least the lower end of the E.D.C. bracket to be reached. He will know that that bracket refers to registrations. Does he expect imports to rise and, therefore, erode the domestic producers' share of that bracket?

Mr. Benn: That depends on how competitive the British motor industry is. It remains true that our percentage of imports grows, but it is still much lower than some of our main competitors, including the Germans. It is tending to rise, but that is inevitable as people buy more in a worldwide sense and do not limit themselves simply to the home market. But we should not leave out of account the fact that the forecast also shows an export record of 5 per cent. higher than last year, which was itself a record.

Government Research Establishments

Mr. David Howell: asked the Minister of Technology by what date he will reach a firm decision on the proposals for the reorganisation of Government research establishments outlined in his recent Green Paper.

Mr. Dalyell: asked the Minister of Technology when he expects to reach conclusions on his Green Paper on Research in Government Laboratories.

Mr. Benn: Proposals to set up a British Research and Development Corporation were put forward for public discussion in a Green Paper published on 16th January. Both the time and the nature of the Government's decisions on these proposals will depend on the course of the debate on them in the House and outside. If it seems as a result of this that no major alterations in the proposals are needed, the Government would aim to announce their decision in the early summer. The earliest possible date for the establishment of the corporation would be 1972.

Mr. Howell: In the meantime, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind the widespread view of many people that the proposals in the Green Paper are basically on the wrong tack and that the effort spent in drumming up more work for Government research establishments might be better spent in putting industrial research back where it belongs—in industry.

Mr. Benn: It is curious that although we published the Green Paper to stimulate debate, in the course of the debate so far there has been no suggestion that we should do nothing, nor has there been any alternative proposal which has stood examination. However, the object


of the Green Paper is to have a debate, and if the hon. Member would like to put forward his proposals—and if there were a debate in the House, that might make it easier for him to do so—we would certainly welcome that.

Mr. Dalyell: In view of the widespread public discussion which gives the impression that my right hon. Friend is on the right track, and not, as the hon. Member suggested, on the wrong track, may we have an early debate on this matter? Would my right hon. Friend make representations to the Leader of the House and perhaps combine with that subject a subject which cannot be sensibly separated from it; namely, the Report of the Select Committee on Defence Research Establishments?

Mr. Benn: I think that every Minister likes to have an opportunity for the House to debate his Department's proposals. This is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and I will refer my hon. Friend's suggestion to him.

Mr. David Price: Would the Minister clear up one point which is not made clear in the Green Paper? He would assist the House to come to a conclusion by doing so. In the Green Paper he proposes transferring responsibility for Risley, Harwell and Culham to his new corporation; does that mean that the U.K.A.E.A. would consequently be wound up?

Mr. Benn: It is apparent from the proposals in the Green Paper that we see the B.R.D.C. absorbing establishments of the Ministry of Technology on the Industrial side and the residual establishments of the A.E.A., and to that extent it represents winding-up the A.E.A. in the sense in which it has previously operated.

Electricity Generating Stations (Nuclear Reactors)

Mr. Maclennan: asked the Minister of Technology if he will discuss with the electricity generating boards whether their requirements will lead to the purchase of the high temperature reactor, steam generating heavy water reactor and fast breeder reactor systems over the next decade.

Mr. Alan Williams: We are in regular touch with the C.E.G.B. about its future requirements for generating stations of all kinds, including advanced nuclear types. We also keep in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about the requirements of the Scottish electricity Boards which are, of course, his responsibility.

Mr. Maclennan: Is my right hon. Friend aware, as I am sure he is, that the export potential of these three reactor systems depends largely on their proven capacity and that the competion of the prototypes in Britain is vital if we are not to lose out in the highly competitive international market?

Mr. Williams: I fully appreciate the point my hon. Friend makes, but inevitably our investment programme has to be geared to the forecast demands of the electricity industry and it is not possible adequately to assess the potential economies of the fast breeder reactor.

Mr. Lubbock: Why is the hon. Gentleman always so reluctant to give full information to the House about the likely time scale of the generating boards for these new reactor types? Can he say in particular when he thinks that the first order will be placed by one of the generating boards in the United Kingdom for the steam generating heavy water reactor, bearing in mind that it is most unlikely that we will sell these types abroad until one is operating on the grid in the United Kingdom?

Mr. Williams: The steam generating heavy water reactor has a much lower optimum operating level than the other reactors available and it may not necessarily be suitable to the high capacity requirements of the British market, although that does not mean that it would be unsuited to other markets. There are cases in Britain where it could be suitable, and we are discussing this with the C.E.G.B.

Mr. David Price: When can we expect an official reply from the hon. Gentleman's Department to the Second Report of the Select Committee on the Civil Nuclear Programme, which bears directly on this matter?

Mr. Williams: That is a separate question. I cannot give a date at this stage.

Gas Conversion Programme

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Technology if he will give the total cost so far of the Gas Council's conversion programme to natural gas and the proportion this represents of the original estimate.

Mr. Donald Williams: asked the Minister of Technology (1) whether the estimate submitted to him by the Gas Council of the cost of conversion of customers' appliances to burn natural gas has been revised in the light of the extensive follow-up campaign that has been necessary;

(2) what was the total expenditure by the Gas Council on the conversion programme of natural gas in 1968–69, and the estimated expenditure each year for the next five years.

Mr. Pounder: asked the Minister of Technology what is the latest estimate of the total cost of the Gas Council's programme of conversion to natural gas; what proportion of this programme has been completed; and at what cost.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: asked the Minister of Technology what is the Gas Council's estimated total investment in conversion to natural gas for each of the next five years expressed as a proportion of total capital expenditure.

Mr. Harold Lever: £31½ million to 31st March 1969, including £24½ million in 1968–69. This includes costs of setting up the programme and is 8 per cent of the original estimate made in 1966 of total expenditure of £400 million, which included provision for a call-back service. Since 1966 both costs and numbers expected to be converted have increased. I am currently discussing with the industry their capital development and conversion expenditure over the next five years, and am not in a position to give a revised estimate of the total cost.

Sir J. Eden: Have the figures in the estimate for the cost of call-back gone up since the original programme was conceived?

Mr. Lever: Without notice of that question, I cannot give a very accurate reply.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: None the less, can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the cost of the programme is likely to be very much more than was originally planned? Is this the right moment for the Gas Council to be spending even more money diversifying further into the oil business at this stage?

Mr. Lever: I find it difficult to understand what diversification into the oil business, since a relatively trifling sum is involved, has to do with the question. If the hon. Gentleman asserts with confindence that the programme will cost more than was originally intended—

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I am asking.

Mr. Lever: If the hon. Gentleman asks me that question, I can only tell him that I am not yet in a position to give the answer. However, there is no reason as yet to have the alarm or excitement which the hon. Gentleman generates.

Mr. Sheldon: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the conversions done by the gas board have been reasonably satisfactory, what is causing a great deal of trouble is some of the sub-contracting? Perhaps it would be worth while expanding the size of the work force involved so that it will be up to gas board standards and not those of some of the sub-contractors.

Mr. Lever: We are anxious to maintain the highest standard of sub-contracting work as well as to expand our own force dealing with this matter, precisely because of the total volume of work requiring attention. But my hon. Friend will recall that in the Gas Bill we make special provisions for encouraging the highest supervision of standards of work in the case of sub-contractors.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, Private notice Question. Mr. Corfield.

Mr. Barnett: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter in the Adjournment debate on Thursday.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS

Mr. Eadie: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. In Question No. 5, posed to the Minister, there was a vital item of principle involved which can affect the jobs of thousands of our miners. Hon. Members who are members of the Miners' Parliamentary Group in this House wanted to cross-examine the Minister, but we were not afforded that opportunity. May we seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to how we can deal with this problem, which is very important to the representatives of all miners?

Mr. Speaker: I do not minimise the disappointment of any hon. Member who is not called to put a supplementary question. The only way in which I can help the hon. Gentleman is to say that he should put down a Question on the Order Paper. Then he is sure to get an answer.

Mr. Lubbock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is, in a way, associated by the point raised by the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie). It will not have escaped your notice that there were no fewer than 92 Questions down for answer by the Minister of Technology today. Fewer than half have been reached. Is it not evident that inadequate time is allotted to Questions addressed to the Minister of Technology, and should not discussions take place through the usual channels for an increase in his time?

Mr. Speaker: I can imagine the same point of order and the same arguments put up for a number of Ministers. It is not a matter for the Chair.

BRITISH AIRLINES (MIDDLE EAST FLIGHTS)

Mr. Corfield: (by Private Notice) asked the President of the Board of Trade what advice he has given to the British registered airlines in regard to flights in the Middle East in connection with either passengers or cargo.

The President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Roy Mason): Any relevant Government information as to risks to safety or operations is passed to the British air-

lines concerned, which also have other sources of information. The airlines' decisions as to the services that they maintain, and other operations, are their own.
It is understandable, and I am sure that the House will think it right, that their immediate first concern, while stock is taken of the security situation, has been for the safety of passengers and crew. I understand that they expect to resume normal carriage of cargo as soon as they are satisfied that all proper safeguards have been achieved.

Mr. Corfield: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is the duty of the Government to give advice, in view of the events over the last weekend, which I am sure all of us utterly condemn, and in view, too, of the great importance and great difficulty of not appearing to give way to intimidation while taking every conceivable precaution in the interests of safety?
Can the right hon. Gentleman say how satisfied he is that the mechanical devices now available are sufficiently effective in detecting the sort of explosive devices which have caused so much damage and murder?

Mr. Mason: It is not intimidation now. The present situation results from an act. The Government have no power to issue a specific directive to an airline to stop operating a service for which it has a licence. Secondly, this should be kept in proper perspective. All B.E.A.'s and B.O.A.C.'s passenger aircraft are operating normally. It is only that the cargo or mail which they would carry has ceased.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield: Can my right hon. Friend give some details of the extra security precautions which he now proposes to take at Heathrow Airport, and, also, can he say something about the representations which have been made to him about the discontinuance of passenger services?

Mr. Mason: It would be foolish to go into detail, but very close liaison is established between the airports and the police. They have increased police checks, they are introducing additional identity checks and, as far as possible, they are limiting numbers on the aprons.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the widespread dismay that the decision of B.E.A. and B.O.A.C. has caused in Israel, where it is said that acts of piracy and terrorism are paying off in the halting of services of international airlines, including S.A.S.? In view of the international implications of what happened over the weekend, will the right hon. Gentleman take an early opportunity of raising it in I.C.A.O. with a view to taking steps, in conjunction with other nations, to halt these acts of terrorism and barbarism?

Mr. Mason: This matter is before I.C.A.O. in a different context, on the question of hijacking. It is important to establish the cause, and who was responsible. An Arab nation was not necessarily responsible for it. It may have been an entirely different body.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the State of Israel should be penalised because of a crime for which it is not responsible and which was committed either by unknown persons, or, as has been reported in the Press, by a guerrilla organisation in Jordan which has claimed responsibility? If it was necessary to make this decision, why apply it to Israel alone? Why not suspend air freight to the whole of the Middle East?
Is it not remarkable that, although the Government of which my right hon. Friend is an important member denounced the attack by the Israeli Government in Egypt the other day in respect of which the Israeli Government admitted a tactical error and said that it should never have happened, the Government have not denounced this murderous crime?

Mr. Mason: My right hon. Friend will be aware that only aircraft on the way to Israel, especially to Tel Aviv, are suspect, and not aircraft on their way to Arab States. Secondly, as I have already said, we must try to establish the cause and who was responsible for this act. Thirdly, we must keep this in proper perspective; the problem is one of air freight and packages of mail only. Passenger services are operating normally. The volume of air freight concerned as a proportion of Israel's total imports and exports is equivalent to only a half of 1 per cent.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, according to the news at one o'clock, the Swiss Government have attributed this incident to the Arabs and that every hijacking incident in the last year has been attributed to Arab nationals? How long have the public to put up with the uncertainties in their travels'? Surely it is up to the Government to give a lead in this matter. Unless the right hon. Gentleman does something, he will have more trouble with the aircrews.

Mr. Mason: Thinking about the aircrews and the passengers, I agree with B.O.A.C.'s and B.E.A.'s decision to stop the carriage of air freight and mail packages. They are harder to identify as a security risk, whereas it is relatively easier to check passengers' luggage. This has been a sensible and necessary decision. Passenger aircraft are still operating normally. B.E.A. has five flights each way each week, and B.O.A.C. has nine, all going on unhampered.

Mr. Mendelson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that, while this announcement is highly controversial, many people will accept the advice of the two companies that for a short period they wish to have time to check their security arrangements? Will he, however, also accept that there is a growing feeling, among people of all political parties and of none, in this country, that the Government now have a duty urgently to get together with other Governments to reach an international agreement whereby the international community takes action against those Governments which permit on their soil the planning of these outrageous criminal murders?

Mr. Mason: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend's latter remarks, which were akin to the comments made by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock). Internationally, the 53 airline managers have already had a meeeting today. They have adjourned, a security appraisal is going on and they will consider the matter afresh tomorrow.

Sir G. Nabarro: When the Minister said in his original reply that safeguards were being taken for the nationalised British airlines, does he include in those safeguards the searching or the X-raying of luggage or the examination of every


piece of luggage accompanying a passenger, to see that it is not secreting an explosive or a bomb planted there by a person other than a passenger?

Mr. Mason: I do not propose to go into detail about that, but obviously, flowing from this incident, tightening up in connection with passengers and their luggage has already started.

Mr. Howarth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the effective means open to Governments, including our own, to put pressure on Arab countries which harbour these terrorist groups is to consider placing restrictions on the operation of Arab airlines?

Mr. Mason: Yes, but I am not satisfied that this is necessary yet.

Mr. Onslow: While the Minister is making up his mind about that, in which respect he seems to be a long way behind the House, will he at least undertake that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs will send for the ambassadors of any countries which are known to give aid and comfort to these terrorist organisations and "mark their cards" very firmly indeed?

Mr. Mason: I will certainly draw the hon. Member's comments to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Snow: Does my right hon. Friend say, or does his statement mean, that we are the only country which has taken this sort of action against these terrorist activities by the Arabs?

Mr. Mason: No, Sir. As an interim measure, the following action has already been taken. B.E.A. and B.O.A.C., together with Air France, Swissair, K.L.M., Austrian Airlines and Lufthansa, are not accepting cargo for Israel and are examining passengers' baggage. B.E.A., Swissair, Air France and Lufthansa have also banned mail. S.A.S. has halted all services to Tel Aviv. We understand that these restrictions are intended to hold the position while the situation is properly surveyed.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the Minister bear in mind that the absence of a senior Foreign Office Minister on the Government Front Bench is quite astonishing in present circumstances? What we are talking about, and quite rightly, is a

steady deterioration, ever since the first hijacking, in the morals of air travel which has been tolerated by the Government. I am not making a political point. Will not the Minister bear in mind that it is high time that positive action on an international level was taken?

Mr. Mason: I gather that the hon. Member follows these matters closely. He knows that hijacking is already receiving attention by the international body which is responsible for civil aviation—I.C.A.O.

Mr. Rankin: Will my right hon. Friend assure us that as long as the flying of civil aircraft and the safety of passengers rests in the hands of the civil air transport authorities, he will not disturb that relationship in any way without giving prior intimation to this House?

Mr. Mason: I would not be in favour of giving a general direction which would amount to interference with airlines, their routes and especially safety until I thought that there was an overwhelming case for doing so. It would be a rarity indeed if I did it.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (CREWE- GLASGOW ELECTRIFICATION)

The Minister of Transport (Mr. Frederick Mulley): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.
I am glad to be able to inform the House that I have today approved the British Railways Board's proposals for the electrification of the West Coast main line from Weaver Junction, near Crewe, to Glasgow.
The estimated cost of the electrification, including the cost of locomotives, is about £25 million. The work will be carried out concurrently with the programme of track improvement and modernisation of signalling on the route which has already been authorised. The board intends to start work immediately with the aim of introducing the electrified services early in 1974.
In combination with the related track improvements, the electrification scheme will enable British Railways to provide faster, more reliable and generally more attractive passenger services as well as enabling them to realise worthwhile


economies in operating costs for all services, passenger and freight. It will eliminate the need for change of locomotive on journeys to the North-West and to Glasgow.
I am confident that this project will play an important role in the development of the national transport network while, at the same time, making a satisfactory contribution to the long-term financial viability of the Railways Board. The consequent improvement in strategic communications with North-West England and Scotland will also be of benefit to the economies of these areas.

Mr. Michael Heseltine: As the Minister knows, we on this side have been putting down Questions pressing for this decision for well over a year and, therefore, we naturally welcome this continuation of an electrification programme which the previous Government introduced.
Can the Minister tell us, however, whether this decision has any implications for the dramatic cuts in railway investment which have been made under his Government since 1964, and whether this programme is to be carried out within the reduced level of investment now applying or whether special allocations will be made by the Government for this purpose?

Mr. Mulley: As to the question of delay, as long ago as December, 1967—and this was repeated again last April, when the rationalisation scheme was approved—it was made clear that approval of this programme could not be given before the end of 1969. I do not think, therefore, that there is a case for suggesting that there has been a delay. Of course, it is an important programme which has justified a thorough study of all aspects.
As to railway investment, the cost in the first year will not be very substantial and will be met within the board's existing ceiling. For 1971, however, the board's investment ceiling will be raised to cover expenditure on this project, and in 1972 and 1973, for which the ceilings have still to be settled, this project will be taken in account in arriving at those ceilings.

Mr. Marsh: Can my right hon. Friend tell the House what he expects

the discounted cash flow rate of return on this investment will be?

Mr. Mulley: The d.c.f. rate will, of course, depend on numerous factors, but I am quite satisfied that it should not be less than, and, indeed, may well be substantially above, the minimum rate of 10 per cent. which we use for assessing these programmes.

Mr. Clark Hutchison: Will the Minister accept that this is a wise and helpful decision on his part and that of the Railways Board, but may I have his assurance that this programme will have no repercussions on the East Coast route as regards through expresses from London to Edinburgh? Further, what is the position about gas turbine engines on that line?

Mr. Mulley: There is no intention that this programme should be linked with the East Coast line and I have no proposals before me for electrification on that route. I would not like to give off the cuff an answer about the engines on the East Coast line. This is essentially a management matter for the board, but I will inquire into it and let the hon. Member know.

Mr. Hynd: Will my right hon. Friend recognise that this announcement will be widely welcomed, not only in railway circles but in business circles generally and in the country, as confirmation of the success of the Government's economic policies which have made this possible?
Can my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that on this occasion there will be no stopping with the programme halfway, as occurred too often under previous Administrations?

Mr. Mulley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has said. This is an important decision for the railways and will, I hope, be well received by all those who work on the railways as an indication of our faith in their future.
As to not stopping the programme half-way, certainly I give that assurance. As well as the electrification, there is to be a complete rationalisation of signalling, track, and so on, so that there should be an absolutely first-class line all the way to Glasgow.

Mr. Monro: While welcoming the statement, may I ask the Minister


whether the Crewe to Carlisle section will be finished before the Carlisle to Glasgow section is begun? Secondly, can he say whether there will be any redundancy among diesel train crews in Scotland?

Mr. Mulley: I cannot give an answer as to the exact way in which the work will be done, but I will make inquiries. This is a matter for the Railways Board, but it only heard this morning of my decision to approve the project.
On the question of diesel crews in Scotland, I am not sure about how it is intended that workers on the diesels will be used in other parts of the inter-city services. As the diesels themselves are to be fully utilised, I would think that their crews would find employment. I am not exactly certain how this works in Scotland, but I will let the hon. Member know.

Mr. Lawson: Will my right hon. Friend accept that people in Scotland, particularly in the West, will be delighted at this announcement? Will he bear in mind, too, that it will fit in with the very substantial development of the Clyde Estuary, a deep-water estuary which may very soon become one of the most important outlets which Britain has to the Atlantic?

Mr. Mulley: I am sure that, for various reasons, this is the right decision, but my hon. Friend will not expect me to bring ports business into railway business in answer to his question.

Mr. Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that what has been lacking in the railway electrification programme is continuity, and that because of the delay in reaching this decision, although it is very welcome now that it has come, the costs imposed on manufacturers, and hence on British Railways, are higher than they need have been? Will he bear this in mind, in view of the fact that the programme is due to be completed in 1974, and begin to think now of what is to come after that?

Mr. Mulley: The responsibility for initiating proposals for further electrification rests with the board. I understand that it does have some further schemes under consideration, but I must also make

it clear that, in recent years, public sector investment programmes have had to be kept under restraint in the interests of the general economic situation.

Mr. William Hamilton: Can my right hon. Friend say whether Scottish Region of British Railways is completely satisfied that it will get a better return from the £25 million investment on electrification than it would from £25 million on improved dieselisation and the improvement of the existing system? Will he give a further assurance, following the supplementary question by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Clark Hutchison), that there will be no diminution of the system on the east side of Scotland?

Mr. Mulley: All these questions are essentially management matters for the Railways Board. I do not go around the railways asking for individual regional views. The views of the board as a whole are transmitted to me, and the board is satisfied that this will yield a worthwhile return.
Equally, with respect to the second part of the question, again I cannot give detailed assurances about trains and timetables on every part of the system.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Does this decision indicate that the original decision to electrify as far as Crewe has proved to be right and that, therefore, the decision of one of the right hon. Gentleman's predecessors, which was very much criticised at the time, has now been justified?

Mr. Mulley: I do not know quite what the right hon. Gentleman means by being right. Obviously, it would not have been sensible to pull up the system if it had not been right. I think that there is scope for considerable argument about the actual figuring on the matter, but certainly I think it right that the line to Crewe should be extended now to Glasgow.

Mr. Milne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while I welcome this suggestion about the British Railways network, I find that in his answers to questions he has been less than forthcoming about the question of the east coast line? While, as he rightly says, it is the responsibility of British Railways, will he ensure that


the Newcastle to Edinburgh and the Newcastle to London east coast links are maintained?

Mr. Mulley: I know of no proposals for electrification of those links. Certainly, I will convey to the British Railways Board the views which hon. Members have expressed, but there are no proposals before me, and I do not know of any under consideration, for electrification on the east coast, but obviously services will continue.

Captain W. Elliot: Is the Minister aware that over the past two decades enormous sums of money have been spent in improving inter-city travel by rail, but that at the same time millions of commuters have suffered appalling and deteriorating conditions? Is he quite satisfied that the allocation of resources as between inter-city travel and commuter services is quite fair?

Mr. Mulley: It is very hard to lay down a general principle, but the Railways Board is concerned about that matter and has done quite a bit to improve commuter services, although I am only too well aware, as is the board, that much still remains to be done. However, I think that inter-city services have greatly improved in recent years and that this improvement has been very welcome.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision will be welcome throughout the country? Will he give an undertaking that no more of the feeder services will be closed down between Crewe and Scotland?

Mr. Mulley: I cannot give a blanket decision about all railway services in answer to questions arising from this statement.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

BRITISH AIRLINES (MIDDLE EAST FLIGHTS)

Mr. Shinwell: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and

important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely:
the decision of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to suspend freight intended for Israel, thus penalising that country because of murders committed for which a guerrilla organisation in Jordan claims responsibility, involving the death of 47 persons, including 13 Israeli civilians.
I wish to make a short submission in support of the Motion. First there can be no question about the definite nature of this matter. The incident has been reported throughout the whole of the world and there has been no denial or challenge of the statements which have been made about the incident itself. It has been reported, as I have said, that 47 persons have met their death, 13 of them civilians from Israel. This was a barbarous, atrocious outrage which ought to be condemned. I do not propose at this stage to use any further argument in support of my contention. I merely submit that there can be no doubt about the definite nature of my request.
I want now to make a further submission, namely, about the urgency of the matter. There can be no question about the urgency of a situation where the Government refuse to take appropriate action, as they can within the charters of the nationalised air lines. I am aware, of course, that it is customary not to intervene with their administration except on general policy, but surely this is a matter of general policy. About that, there can be no question. The Government, apparently, are unwilling to take a decision which would compel the nationalised airlines to continue to trade with the State of Israel. It is urgent, moreover, because there is an impediment to trade in so far as there is prevention of air mail from being transported in the customary fashion, and, of course, in the transmission of freight of various kinds.
There is a further aspect of this question. The situation in the Middle East, as everybody admits, is inflammatory, and I can imagine that, unless there is world-wide condemnation by civilised Governments and civilised peoples, and I include in that category our own Government and the whole House of Commons—we are civilised people—of the attack, and proper action taken, we shall be condemned and become almost accessories to this murderous outrage.
In addition to the danger of the present inflammatory situation in the Middle East, there is another danger, namely, the fact that there might be an escalation of this inflammation. Reprisals may occur. I hope that they will not. I hope that if there are any reprisals of a military character, civilians will not suffer in any part of the world, even in the Middle East. There can, therefore, be no question about the urgency of the matter.
In view of what I regard as the most unsatisfactory reply given by the Minister on this issue today, despite the remarks made by some of my hon. Friends, it seems that the answer was indefinite. We have not been informed that within, say, 24 or 48 hours the normal procedure will be resumed. Had the Minister given an indication of that possibility I might not have made these submissions to you, Mr. Speaker. Because of his failure to respond in the way that I thought that he might respond—that is; appropriately in the circumstance—I must make these submissions.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) was courteous enough to inform me that he might seek to raise a Standing Order No. 9 matter this afternoon if he were not satisfied with the Minister's answer.
Before I rule, I am sure that I need not inform the right hon. Gentleman that every hon. Member, including the Chair, condemns the atrocious crime which has taken place and which is the subject of this application.
The right hon. Gentleman asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
the decision of B.O.A.C. and B.E.A. to suspend freight intended for Israel, thus penalising that country because of murders committed, for which a guerrilla organisation in Jordan claims responsibility, involving the death of 47 persons, including 13 Israeli civilians.
As the House knows, under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take account of the several factors set out in the Order, but to give no reason for my decision.
I have, as the House can well imagine, given very careful consideration to the representations which the right hon. Gentleman has made, but I have to rule that his submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and, therefore, I cannot submit his application to the House.

Sir A. V. Harvey: On a point of order. While, naturally, I accept your Ruling, Mr. Speaker, and appreciate that it would be out of order for me to discuss it in any way, may I ask the Leader of the House whether the President of the Board of Trade will make another statement tomorrow and so bring the House up to date on this important subject?

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Fred Peart): Yes, Sir. I will make representations to my right hon. Friend, in view of the remarks that have been made.

NORTHERN REGION (ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT)

4.3 p.m.

Mr. Gordon A. T. Bagier: I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the grave threat to the interests of the northern development area arising from the Tory shadow cabinet's proposals at its Selsdon Park meeting; and congratulates the Government for pursuing policies aimed at assisting the Northern development area to recover from the effects of the changing pattern of industry, and the years of neglect under the previous Tory governments.

Mr. Speaker: I wish to inform the House at this stage, in case I am not in the Chair when the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) has completed his speech, that I have not selected the Amendment standing in the names of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward), namely, in line 2, leave out from 'House' to end and add:
'considers that no distortions should distract attention from the fact that Government policies for the North-East have failed, that large sums of taxpayers' money are, as supporters of the Government publicly acknowledge, being wasted with no increase in jobs, and that the North-East has the highest unemployment in Great Britain'.

Mr. Bagier: I will try to make it clear that my hon. Friends and I who represent Northern constituencies are not, despite the terms of the Motion, entirely satisfied with the situation at the present time. There is still very high unemployment in the North and this has been the main festering sore with which we have had to contend for a long time. Later in my speech I shall make what I hope will be regarded as some constructive suggestions, but, first, I wish to identify the size of the problem.
It has been estimated by the Northern Economic Planning Council that by 1981 the total of jobs lost since 1966 in the region's basic industries of coal, steel, shipbuilding and marine engineering will have been about 150,000, mainly male. This is an extremely serious and hard problem to solve.
I wish to make it clear at the outset that this problem would have been much easier to solve had it been identified 10 or 15 years ago. Indeed, it is fair to say,

as the terms of the Motion make clear, that there were years of neglect under previous Administrations when action could and should have been taken to foresee the problem and adopt steps to alleviate it.
By identifying the problems of the so-called grey areas the Labour Administration are appreciating the sort of difficulties that these areas will be facing in five, 10 or 15 years' time, in addition to the problems which they are facing today. Had hon. Gentlemen opposite done this when they were responsible—between 1951 and 1964—the predicament would not now be as severe as it is.
Unemployment in the Northern Region is very high. Like hon. Gentlemen generally, I have been pleased to see a slight downturn this month, and this has probably come about because of the policies which Labour has been pursuing. Considering the tremendous amount of capital investment that has been made in the region—far more than anything achieved under the Tories—there must have been some effect resulting from Labour's policies.
Nevertheless, in January, 1970, the Northern Region had a rate of unemployment of 5·2 per cent., representing a total of 67,900 persons registered as unemployed, an extremely high figure. Particularly worrying is the fact that 3,600 young persons were unemployed last month, almost 500 more than last year. Bearing these figures in mind, it is reasonable to make comparisons with what occurred under previous Administrations. For example, in 1963 there were 9,600 youngsters out of work—that after 12 years of Tory rule.

Sir Keith Joseph: In which month of 1963?

Mr. Bagier: Which month indeed!

Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will refrain from quoting figures for February, 1963—that was the most severe winter of the century —I and my hon. Friends will undertake to refrain from quoting figures for 1947, the year of the fuel crisis.

Mr. Bagier: Is the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that bad weather made a difference between 3,600 and 9,300 youngsters unemployed?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes.

Mr. Bagier: That is typical of the approach of hon. Gentlemen opposite. That is why we have this problem after 13 years of Tory rule. The figures are disturbing and I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I will be among the first to analyse them and to compare the policies pursued by the Tories with the policies which we have been pursuing.
In considering this whole problem we must examine how the Government can be of assistance. In 1963 or 1964 the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said, in effect, "Labour hon. Members talk about bringing in Government industry, but to produce what and for what market?" My hon. Friends were in opposition at the time. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the Labour Government have not been doing too bad a job when we consider how they have encouraged private enterprise to establish the Alcan smelter.
They have not done a bad job in bringing Government offices from the centre. New Government offices since the beginning of 1966 in the Northern Region include the Board of Trade Investment Grants Office at Billingham; the Department of Education and Science teachers' salaries and pension office at Darlington: the Ministry of Social Security Staff Training Centre at Billingham; and Her Majesty's Stationery Office factory for printing telephone directories, at the Team Valley Trading Estate, which means 400 jobs by the mid-1970s, mostly males.
There is the Inland Revenue Computer Centre at Washington, which will mean 3,000 jobs by the mid-1970s. The National Savings Save As You Earn Department at Durham will provide several hundred jobs. That is not a bad record for a Goverment who have been in office for only a short period of years; and I have forgotten to mention the Land Commission headquarters at Newcastle. [Laughter.] The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) laughs. Perhaps he does not agree that there should be a Land Commission headquarters at all.
The hon. Member should refer to his right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, who seems to have been in two minds on this. On 18th July, 1960, he said that such a scheme would be financially unsound and would make the State a huge landlord. He added:

I do not believe … that that would be acceptable to the public."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th July, 1960; Vol. 627, c. 161.]
But that was just after a General Election. What did he say in 1963, just prior to an election? He said on 18th November, speaking as Minister of Housing, that it seemed right that the increase in land value as a result of public expenditure should be collected by the public. He went on:
It is a corollary of regional planning and development that land planned for major development should be bought well in advance by a public authority for disposal to private enterprise or to public enterprise as required, both to control and phase the development and to help in meeting the cost of bringing it into development.
We may well have to devise new machinery for the purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 18th November, 1963; Vol. 684, c. 656.]
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's later statement is one that he will stick to and that he will be satisfied that we have a Land Commission headquarters in the North-East.
I hope that there is no argument about public investment with hon. Members opposite. In the North-East it has risen from £83 million in 1965–66, or 7·1 per cent., to £160·6 million in 1968–69. This is an increase of 93 per cent. in investment in the Northern Region, by far the fastest rate of increase of any region in Great Britain.
Housing accounted for about one-third of such investment. We shall have to watch this figure in the North now. We shall have to watch just how much it drops, as it may well do. When one examines some of the figures for house building in the region, one is alarmed. Take my own local authority of Sunderland as an example. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) said recently that many Conservative chairmen seemed to be trying to emulate their Labour predecessors in building more houses.
I will exonerate Sunderland from that. It has dropped its house-building programme from 1,400 a year to 100. If the burgomasters of Sunderland want to come to my "surgery" any time and hear my constituents begging for houses, they are welcome. It is no good their saying for one moment that the housing problem has been solved. It is far from that.
As regards home ownership, only within the past two or three weeks the Sunderland Council has admitted that it played


about with an offer of £150,000 towards mortgage grants. It was only through the persistence of the leader of the oppositions' party, the Labour leader on the council, that it came to light that the council had been playing about with it since September, when the recommendation was that the offer should not be taken up. That is from the party which believes in home ownership. Many old properties in Sunderland with long periods of life ahead of them could well have been the subject of a mortgage under that scheme.
When the Tory local authority starts to judge whether my constituents can afford the current rates of interest on mortgages, it is a precious nerve, certainly when the matter was not brought before the council until it was forced to. At this month's council' meeting the decision was reversed owing to the persistence of my Labour colleagues, but this has left only a few weeks before the end of the financial year in which the £150,000 can be taken up.
It is remarkable that when we have debates, as we had the other week, about the size of the housing programme, we cannot take into consideration the activities of local authorities like that. It seems a strange situation, far removed from what went on in the years of Labour councils and Tory government, when council after council came to see Tory Ministers begging for loan sanctions to increase their house-building programme. We have exactly the reverse situation where housing Ministers are having to write to local authorities and ask them to analyse their housing situation to see why they are not building the number of houses they should.
The only mistake made by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing was to address the letter to the mayor. The mayor of my authority thought that it was a personal letter, because she did not even bother to report it to the full council. I had to ask my right hon. Friend in the House whether it was a personal letter or one which should be given the council's judgment.
The situation in Sunderland is quite serious. We have the town clerk reported in a newspaper as saying:
We have noted what the Minister said and we trust that these assurances are not just

pious hopes. The fact remains that unless more is done in the way of direct aid, Sunderland will indeed suffer to the extent I forecast in the statement I made to the Minister.
The report continued:
Last night, pointing to Sunderland's 'very serious unemployment problem' of 6,000 workless, Mr. Storey had told the Minister: 'We believe that given equal terms with others we can go a long way to solving it, but we cannot progress far if we have to fight the Government, and this is just what we are having to do'.
The only difference is that that was said by the town clerk to the present Leader of the Opposition in 1964, after 13 years of Tory government. This was the essence of their planning, when reference was made to the tremendous difficulties of Sunderland then. So it is an appalling cheek that our Government after only a short period in office should be attacked so much by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite.
We have peculiar problems, peculiar, I suppose, to development districts, in as much as we have had a tremendous rundown in the more basic industries. We have had a rundown in the coal mining, shipbuilding and engineering industries of the figure to which I referred.
There are two ways in which we can solve the problem. We can attract new technologically-based industries into the area, and we can train the necessary staff. We can also provide factory space in which they can operate. Here, the Government have a credit mark. There are now in the Northern Region 76 advance factories planned or built. When the party opposite was in office, from 1951 to 1959, not one advance factory was planned or built. When the regional Rip van Winkles finally woke up and produced their 1960 Local Government Act, with provision for advance factories, they steamed ahead and up to 1964 had produced 16. Since we came to office in 1964, 60 advance factories have been planned for the region.
We have 45 advance factories allocated, 16 under construction, three completed but unlet, and nine yet to start building. We are prepared to provide the hardware, the money, the incentive, the investment grants, the training grants—all that is available—assuming that we can get industry to the area. The present Government have been doing a fairly hectic job of planning, which is in stark contrast


to what went on during 13 years of Tory administration.
In the debate on unemployment on 3rd February the hon. Member for New-castle-upon-Tyne referred, quite rightly, to training. Training presents a very big problem. The hon. Gentleman quoted a figure of 52,000 unemployed, of whom only 8,000 were registered as craftsmen. It is extremely difficult overnight to plan the training of men who have for many years been in other industries but, again, the number of training centres which have been made available under the present Government makes a stark contrast to the performance of the previous Government, and from it one is able to judge the actions of the party opposite when in office and when in opposition.
Between 1951 and 1959 training at Government centres virtually ceased, and during that period right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite were closing training centres. In the end, there were provided in the North-East only 80 places—

Mr. R. W. Elliott: Why?

Mr. Bagier: The hon. Gentleman asks "Why?". One reason was that the Tories mistakenly and foolishly, and typically, thought that because unemployment had fallen retraining was no longer needed. Such thinking shows how much they misunderstand how retraining ought to be done.
The hon. Gentleman has said that there was trade union resistance. When there is widespread unemployment there is a tendency towards trade union resistance, because it is natural, in such circumstances, that the trade unions should be thinking more in terms of protecting their unemployed craftsmen than taking in men from Government training centres. That means that a period of near full employment was the time when the planning of training should have taken place; a time when it was obvious that there would be a rundown in coal mining, rationalisation in shipbuilding, and so on. Hon. and right hon. Members opposite did not foresee this. As a result, the North-East was left with 80 places, at the Felling Training Centre.
The present position is that we have a potential in the Northern Region training centres at Felling, Tursdale, Billing-

ham, Killingworth and Maryport of 2,000 trainees per annum. The new Durham G.T.C. started in November, and Tursdale was closed last month, the trainees there being transferred to Durham. When Darlington opens we shall have an annual potential of between 2,500 and 2,800 trainees. A new centre will probably be opened at Middlesbrough in April, 1971, when the potential annual output of trainees in the region will be about 3,000.
This amply underlines the fact that the Government are prepared to get to grips with the problem and to understand it. They are prepared to provide £10 a week for each individual trainee if industry is brought in. They are prepared to examine the real problems involved in asking the trade unions for their help—help that has been given, be it noted, on most occasions—in taking in trainees on their return to industry.
What worries me is what would happen in the unlikely event of the Opposition being returned to power. What worries me, and this is why I have included it in my Motion, is what would happen in the region as a result of the Selsdon Park proposals. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East will enlarge somewhat on what he sees his proposals doing in the North-East. Most of us can only go by newspaper reports, and it is reported that there will be a quick phasing out of the regional employment premium—

Sir K. Joseph: Phased.

Mr. Bagier: We are told that it is to be phased out. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will tell us what he means by phasing out, and what thinks should replace the premium.
We hear reports that the party opposite intends to replace investment grant—

Mr. W. E. Garrett: If any.

Mr. Bagier: If any, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) says. The Opposition have not been known for philanthropy when in power.
But the right hon. Gentleman must be careful, because if he puts forward these proposals without taking notice of their effects on industry there may be some backlash. For instance, some of us are


worried, and so are some of the right hon. Gentleman's supporters, about how this R.E.P. proposal would affect, for example, the shipbuilding industry. If R.E.P. is to be phased out, we will be interested to know how it will affect a firm like Swan Hunter, which, last year, showed profits of £1·6 million, of which £1·5 million were accounted for by R.E.P.
It may well be argued that we should not provide profits for shipbuilders, but I know just how competitive the shipbuilding business is, and how hard the firms have worked—under this Government's guidance—to get orders. What they have done is to their credit.
I recall the policy of the party opposite, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Wallasey (Mr. Marples) provided £70 million worth of credit for the shipbuilding industry without any strings being attached, or any condition made about those in the industry making themselves efficient. It was a palliative, and one which I am proud to say my constituency gobbled up to the extent of 40 per cent.
It has been the present Government which have implemented the Geddes Report, which have produced the Shipbuilding Industry Board and put the industry in a position to compete throughout the world. It was the present Government which provided the wherewithal by means of which Wearside has launched more tonnage than ever before in its history. The Government have appreciated the problem.
The right hon. Gentleman may shake his head, but I remind the House once more that when the right hon. Member for Wallasey provided that £70 million it was taken as a gift, and the shipbuilding industry did nothing to bring about some measure of efficiency—

Sir K. Joseph: I think that the shipbuilders themselves would say that the biggest contributions to their welcome success have been devaluation and a world shipping boom.

Mr. Bagier: It is a tripartite thing. The industry would probably be rather more honest, and admit that the credit made available by this Government has also been of great help—

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that if what the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has said were true, the Swan Hunter shipbuilding firm would have been out of business without the two things he has mentioned?

Mr. Bagier: That is true. I could also mention that some of the larger firms—Clarke Chapman, Davy-Ashmore, Reyrolle Parsons, Cammell Laird, Head-Wrightson, Swan Hunter and Vickers—also made profits inclusive of R.E.P. which will, by giving them the ability to plough money back into investment, affect their competitiveness. Perhaps I should warn the right hon. Gentleman that contributions like the £4,000 made by Reycolle Parsons towards his party's funds may dry up if he gets too naughty in that direction.

Mr. Rhodes: It is a very bad investment, anyway.

Mr. Bagier: I agree that it is a very bad investment.
We should like to hear with what the right hon. Gentleman would replace the £28 million to be phased out from R.E.P. There were no proposals from Selsdon Park about what is to happen over S.E.T. The party opposite has made great play about replacement of S.E.T. and this affects the Northern Region. What is to replace it? When we examine the wide proposals of the party opposite for expenditure, we see that S.E.T. must be replaced by something. If it is to be value-added tax, will the right hon. Gentleman spell out what that will mean in terms of regional development? Will it be of assistance to that or not?
I hope that we shall hear what is to replace investment grants. I take note of the Amendment to which the names of the hon. Member for Newcastle, North and the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) have been attached. The Amendment appears to infer indirectly that some supporters of the Government believe that much of this investment is not necessary in providing jobs and is a waste of money. I do not look at it in that way. It is investment in the country and I want to see some of it in the North-East. It cannot be dealt with in a black and white way, with some for one part and none for another part; we want to see a mixture.
Of course I want labour-intensive industries, but I also want capital-investment industries. I do not want off-shoots of factories in the South employing a couple of hundred people in the region and then, at the first sign of cold, those off-shoot factories closing down. I want long-term investment, both for capital- and labour-intensive industry. There is no easy way about this. I should like the right hon. Member to explain this afternoon how the replacement of investment grants could easily bring labour-intensive industries to the North.
In some ways this debate is unusual. Normally, on a private Member's Motion one tries to use arguments near and dear to one's constituency and its problems, but arising out of the proposals which came from the Selsdon Park conference there is grave danger and fear, not only in the hearts of my supporters but also in the hearts of industrialists in the region. The right hon. Gentleman owes it to them at least to spell out what those proposals mean.
In the debate I am certain that my hon. Friends will be able amply to underline the 13 years of waste which we had in the North-East under the Tories. Let us not say 13 years because hon. Members always moan about that. Let us say at least nine years, because from 1951 to 1958 there were two things which hon. Members opposite did not do. They did not build one advance factory in the North-East and did not open one training centre. That is an indictment of hon. Members opposite. They must have known this, for it was preached at them plenty of times by my hon. Friends who were in this House before I became a Member. I have read the debates and know that my hon. Friends told them what could and should have happened then.
In studying the success or failure of a Government, that Government should be given a fair crack of the whip. It is fair to ask that. If we analyse the situation after five years of Labour Government and put it alongside that of 13 years of Tory government it will be found that our Government do not come out too badly. Over the last seven years 200 firms have come to the North-East; 50 of them came last year. So we have reason to hope and believe that the policies which we are pursuing, which started in

an atmosphere of deficit, are just beginning to pay off.
I ask hon. Members opposite, if they have any influence at all with their local government colleagues, to draw their attention to some of the harm which some local authorities are doing. Hon. Members opposite should ask them not to cut back the house-building programme to the extent to which they are cutting it back and not to make of the rate bill a holy cow. If they want to keep a steady rate, let them be honest and thank this Government who, for five years, successively have provided the equivalent of a 5d. rate We do not find resolutions referring to that coming from Tory local councils. South Shields Council, Tory-controlled, cannot find the 25 per cent. of £1 million required for very important road works, 75 per cent. of which would be met by the Government.
Tories there are becoming very parsimonious, as they were in the national sense when they were the Government from 1951 to 1964. I hope that the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth will urge her council not to be parsimonious, but to meet its share in providing half-rate bus fares for old-age pensioners.

Dame Irene Ward: Could the hon. Member explain the problem in Whitley Bay? We had a scheme for dealing with coast erosion. A plan was sent up to the Government, but the Ministry has asked us to send a cheaper plan.

Mr. Bagier: The hon. Lady puzzles me. I gave way to her on the understanding that she would say something about her local council, which has refused to meet its share of the passenger transport authority's scheme for providing half-rate fares for old-age pensioners.
I hoped that the hon. Lady would be sympathetic towards that and would use such influence as she has with the local council. I mentioned this matter to show how parsimonious the Tory Party can be in office both locally and nationally. Of course, hon. Members opposite can offer great things when they are in opposition, but we have had the experience of what they did from 1951–1964. We do not want those days back again.
I impress on my right hon. Friend that, far from being complacent about the


situation in the North-East, we are still extremely angry. Whatever this Government, and especially the two Ministries concerned, have done, we still have tremendous problems. I hope that the Government will look again at the question of making Sunderland a special development area. We have empty factory space which is not let because of the competitiveness of special development areas surrounding Sunderland. More important, I beg my right hon. Friend to implore the Chancellor of the Exchequer to see whether a measure of reflation can now take place because this difficulty has been the root of the unemployment problem.
The Northern Region has traditionally carried more than twice the national average of unemployment. We hope that that will not last for long. If the national average can be brought down, that can have a great impact on the region. There is one thing which neither my hon. Friends nor I can accept. When we have a first-class balance of payments situation, as we now have, and have been pursuing policies which have been tough, I hope that the Chancellor will not assume that we can enjoy a first-class balance of payments on the backs of unemployed in the North-East.
This is what I do not want to see happen. I want to see my right hon. Friend examine it and consider whether there are any further measures by which we can be helped and also to ensure that as we are coming towards a situation of "breaking even", that there is no further setback in the North-East.
The Motion I have tabled refers to the 13 years of wasted Tory government, wasted years of not anticipating and planning for the future of the North-East; to the proposals that the Tories would impose if they came back into office arising from their Selsdon Park meeting and it congratulates the Government in at least pursuing policies aimed at trying to put things right—because I believe that this Government want to put things right and believe in trying to put things right and have more chance of putting them right than right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. I therefore commend the Motion to the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harry Gourlay): Order. Before I call the next

speaker, perhaps I should remind the House that this is a short debate. Many hon. Members from the North want to participate, and brief speeches will enable more to do so.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I shall try to meet with your appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and make as short a speech as I possibly can.
As is customary—and with all sincerity —I congratulate the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), first, on his good fortune in the Ballot and, second, most certainly on the manner in which he delivered his speech. But there my congratulations must end.
I agree, however, with one or two things which he has said. I agree that industrialists in the Northern Region are worried at this time. They certainly are. They are worried at the very vague possibility of the return of a Labour Government. Until quite recently they used to say to us, "When are you going to get them out?". Now, looking slightly worried, they say, "They cannot possibly win, can they?". I agree that industrialists are worried.
Second, at the end of his speech the hon. Gentleman appealed to his Front Bench, as well he might, that they should not have a surplus on their balance of payments at the expense of high unemployment. But that is exactly what the Government have. They have a surplus on their balance of payments due in the main to heavy credit restrictions and a very high level of unemployment in the weakest sections of the economy—the development areas.

Mr. Bagier: Mr. Bagier rose—

Mr. Elliott: The hon. Gentleman must recognise that Mr. Deputy-Speaker has asked for brief speeches.

Mr. Bagier: The hon. Gentleman's Government had exactly the same or in some cases higher unemployment figures and a balance of payments deficit.

Mr. Elliott: If the hon. Gentleman starts comparing unemployment figures in the 13 so-called wasted years with unemployment figures at the moment, he will not make the comparison for very long.
There is another point I must make in reply to what the hon. Gentleman said several times. The hon. Gentleman said apologetically, in terms of his Government, that they have not been in power very long. But they have. It is quite a long time now since 1964 and to many in this country and certainly to right hon. and hon. Members on this side of the House, it seems longer. But 1964–70 is a long time, and it is no use using that as an excuse for the absolute failure of the economy which the Government have produced. They have been in power for long enough—almost half the length of time that we were in.
Before criticising the hon. Gentleman's speech generally, I should like to make one further reference to what he said. The hon. Gentleman quite rightly referred to training and talked of a stark comparison. He mentioned a speech I made in the House on unemployment a short while ago, and I thought that in that speech I answered his point. Very briefly, I shall do so again.
The speech concerned training places and centres under the Conservative Government. The question was half answered by the hon. Gentleman himself. It was much more difficult to create training places and to persuade people to go into those training places when we had comparatively full employment. As I said in that recent speech, when I entered the House about 12 years ago we could not fill the training places in the Government centres. The hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough), who was recently in the Department concerned, will recall that in the training centres at Felling and Tursdale there were empty places, but it was because we had full employment.
In full employment men, women and school-leavers can obtain a job without training and it is not likely that they will then undertake it. In those days, people wanted to get straight into employment, and they still do. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we have a big training problem in that 8,000 only of the 56,000 registered unemployed men in the North-East have any skill at all. This is a problem that we must face fairly and squarely, but even now, with all the training places, it is difficult to persuade man to take training places if they are still afraid of losing money thereby.

Mr. Ron Lewis: Mr. Ron Lewis (Carlisle) rose—

Mr. Elliott: It seems odd that every time I begin a speech on the North-East the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis) interrupts me almost before I get started.

Mr. Ron Lewis: It, as the hon. Member implies, there was full employment at that time, why did the Government of that day send the right hon and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) to Tyneside and the North to look into the question?

Mr. Elliott: With respect, the hon Member for Sunderland, South talked of 80 training places. This was back in the 1950s and from 1951 until, as the hon. Gentleman quite rightly acknowledged, 1960 the problem had not be come acute.
It was the rundown in the coal-mining, shipbuilding and steel industries which brought this immense problem upon us. Since then, the problem has been substantially aggravated by the failure of the present Government's central economic policy. That is what we must hammer home to the public over and over again. Development areas have no hope at all of overcoming their problems if the central economic policy of the Government is failing.
When hon. Members from The North-East come out top of the Ballot they automatically choose the problems of that area as their subject. That is wholly understandable. Our unemployment problem, after six years of Labour government, is the worst in the country. The difference between the present Motion and that of his hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins), who was last to be lucky in the Ballot, is that there is a considerable change in emphasis.
In the past, the hon. Member for Con-sett and others of his hon. Friend's have appealed to their own Front Bench to do something more for the region and have suggested that not enough has been done. But, of course, we have reached election year and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South has turned his attack to this Front Bench and to Selsdon Park. He is suggesting that we shall not do enough. Obviously, he realises that the policies of his own party have failed. He has now


turned on ours. It would be better if we had a General Election and could put our policies into action.

Mr. David Watkins: I realise that time is pressing, but I must draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that the Motion which I moved, which was carried by the House, welcomed
the remarkable economic and social progress which has resulted from the policies of the Government".

Mr. Elliott: I think that the hon. Member, whose speech I remember as being moderate, went on to suggest that the Government were not doing nearly enough. But I find that part of the Motion today was most surprising in that hon. Gentlemen opposite congratulate the Government on the policies that they are pursuing. They have done very little for the North-East. We were told in 1964 that wonderful things would happen. We were told of the economic planning council and all the wonderful changes which would be brought in as a result of planning.
I found this part of the hon. Gentleman's Motion so surprising that, over the weekend, I turned up the election address on which he sought to represent—and he succeeded—the people of Sunderland, South. This is what he said:
When Labour wins—there will be full employment every year—not just election year" There is double the national average of unemployment in the region, and on Wearside, where the hon. Gentleman's constituency lies, there are now 59 men out of work for every job vacant.
What a commentary that is on the Government whom the hon. Gentleman supports, and what a hollow cry his words in that election address now seem. I quote again:
When Labour wins—there will be a square deal for all workers.
I cannot help pondering on what the hon. Gentleman may write in his next election address.
The Northern Region continues to carry 10 per cent. of the total unemployment in the country, although we have but 4·8 per cent. of the work force. In the region as a whole—it is much worse in Wearside, I know—there are 13 men unemployed for every vacancy. Nationally, bad though it is, there are just

four men for every vacancy. For every worker in employment, there are two unemployed. That is the grim picture in the region now, and that is the summary of the employment problem facing us today.
My reason for seeking to amend the hon. Gentleman's surprising Motion—I did not succeed with my Amendment, and I accept that—is that it is high time we faced the hard facts. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray), whom I am happy to see in his place, made a good point in his speech on 3rd November last year. The National Plan is forgotten. It was a failure. The planners, who used to tell us that we could not plan, have failed. As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West rightly suggested, the time for public relations exercises is over.
As I rather thought he would, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, once again referred to the so-called inheritance, the story of the £800 million deficit. It is the only defence which the Labour Party now has left for the fact that we have double the taxation that we had in 1964, and record price increases, increases the like of which have never been seen in our country's history before. The rise is weekly now, as the housewife in the North-East, this distressed area, realises every time her shopping bill goes up again. We have crippling interest rates, higher than at any time in our history, and we have the present deplorable level of unemployment.
A deficit of £800 million in 1964 is a very bad argument, a dishonest argument. In 1964, our balance of payments position was rapidly improving. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, but I have taken part in these debates over quite a long time now. When we were on the Government side, I used to speak in debates about potential and probable unemployment, and I fought the elections in 1964 and 1966.
After 1964, due to Conservative measures, our balance of payments position improved so rapidly that the deficit on current account had been eliminated by 1965. The hon. Members for Sunderland, South and for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) will remember Labour's slogan at the 1966 election:
Now you know that Labour government works".


It appeared to have done so for a brief period at the time. But half that deficit, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, was investment.
If hon. Members will examine the figures, which show what our national stock position was at the time, they will never again talk of the deficit or talk of the "wasted Tory years", as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South did.
I draw to the attention of hon. Members opposite an article which appeared The Times Business News of 22nd January this year, written by Professor Paish, an eminent economist, and headed:
Saved by the fall in stocks".
Professor Paish inssued the warning that
A favourable balance of trade accompanied by an exceptionally low level of stock accumulation
is unlikely to be maintained. But that is what we have now.
Conversely,
he went on,
an unfavourable balance of trade is less likely to persist if it is accompanied by a … high level of stock accumulation …".
I recommend to the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends an examination of the comparative stock accumulation position between 1964 and now. The table which Professor Paish produced puts the Tory performance in 1964 in a very different light.
The stock accumulation—largely raw materials and fuel brought in for manufacture and subsequent export—was high, at a higher level than it is now. In 1969, the favourable balance of payments in the last quarter could be negative because—this is what we strongly suspect—there has been destocking. The tragedy of the last six years, years which are much more wasted years than the 13 Tory years we hear so much about, is that we have lived on stocks.
The present Government reaped the harvest in 1965 and 1966. They increased Government expenditure between 1964 and 1967 without any increase in economic earnings at all, and at the same time they increased taxation by fantastic amounts. So much for the fallacy of the supposed wasted years.
Now, the Government's economic measures are hurting the North-East more than ever before. Hon. Members will have noted, as I did, the severe warning

issued by the C.B.I. last Friday in The Times. It is suggested that there would be a continuing substantial fall in capital spending. It is the severe squeeze which above all else is hurting the North-East at this time.
One can gain a quick indication of the true position from listening to what industry itself has to say. I am sure that hon. Members from the North-East visited industrial concerns, managing directors, and so on during the Christmas Recess, as I did. Over and over again, one realised that business, large and small, is short in liquidity and, consequently, short in investment. Industry cannot move. As in the case of the Crowborough engineering firm in Aycliffe which I mentioned in the debate on unemployment, industry is unable to adjust and has not the liquidity to do so.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South commented on our Selsdon Park proposals regarding investment incentives as against grants. There is a high level of Government expenditure in our development areas, as the hon. Gentleman himself made clear when he gave the actual amount. If roads and houses as well as industrial incentives are included, the total works out at about £95 per capita This is substantial investment, substantial economic aid, but the trouble is that the money is not being spent in a successful way. The aid is not succeeding. The aid which was supposed to cure unemployment has not done so.
In February, the level of unemployment is slightly down in the region, now that we have moved from January and the height of the winter is over, but I hope that hon. Members have noted that, although unemployment is slightly down for February in the region as compared with January, it is not as much down as it was in February last year compared with the January. In other words, the position has worsened.
Referring to the development area investment differential, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West, speaking in the House on 3rd November, said:
In many cases the effect of this indiscriminate handout,"—
I agree with him that that is so—
given without any test of the number of jobs created, is actually to reduce employment in the development areas."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd November, 1969; Vol. 790, c. 721.]


That is our main criticism of the economic aid which has been pumped into the area—and, incidentally, I gave the hon. Member notice that I should refer to his speech.

Dr. Jeremy Bray: I am grateful to the hon. Member for reminding us of the point, because the indiscriminate capital subsidy was introduced by the Conservative Party when they were in power, with the free depreciation system, which was more capital intensive than the present system. Furthermore, while the Government are examining this question, the Opposition have already "jumped the gun" and have said that they will continue the indiscriminate capital subsidies.

Mr. Elliott: I doubt very much whether that is what has been said, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) will no doubt make his own contribution to the debate.
Free depreciation had a very short time to work before we lost office. Free depreciation and investment allowances, contrary to grants, at least are tied to efficiency. The whole theme of our policy of aid to development areas is that they should not stand for ever with begging bowls, but should be encouraged to move towards standing on their own feet. That is why I believe that our proposals will be much more effective than those of the Government.
As the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West said, grants have sometimes given aid where it has reduced the possibility of employment by capital its intensiveness. Aid has been given in other cases where it has not even been required and not even wanted. He mentioned one case in his speech. He referred to the movement of Shell to the region; they stated that they had not taken the subsidy into account as one of the reasons for going to the region.
We appeal from this side of the House to hon. Members opposite to recognise, even now, that there is not an unlimited supply of wealth which can be tapped for ever. I used to speak on this subject from the Government benches when we were in office and to listen to Labour hon. and right hon. Members from the Northern Region talking in the broadest

sense about aid. They argued that the development areas were not big enough and that the provisions of the Local Employment Act were not wide enough.
But that Act was working very well indeed in the Northern Region, and I believe that its machinery could work well again by bringing aid where it is most needed and where it can provide the greatest assistance in relation to the number of jobs. But that was not enough for the region, so right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite said when they were in opposition. They wanted more aid, wider aid and wider development areas. They wanted factories at the pit heads.
But no progress was made until my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) went to the region and instituted his excellent inquiry—the only inquiry which has been worthwhile. Indeed, with the greatest respect to others, he was the only Minister with responsibility for the region to set out what the region needed, and he emphasised that there were only certain parts of the region to which industry could go and only certain areas in which industry could develop. On taking office in 1964, the Labour Government did not take that advice—certainly not at the beginning. I wonder what the. Economic Planning Council has been doing over the years. Certainly, I do not know. When it eventually produced a report, called "Challenge of the Changing North", it made again the point which had been made in the Hailsham Report.
I claim to have been consistent in my suggestions about what is needed in the development areas. I have argued consistently that we should give such aid as is available where it is most needed and that that aid should be tied to productivity and to jobs created. There should also be a sensible selectivity about aid, both between development areas and within them.
As I said in the debate on unemployment a short time ago, it is wrong that the Northern Region, with its high unemployment figure, should be receiving only £48 per head in public investment when Scotland, with I per cent. lower unemployment, receives £62 per head. Why did not the Government have the political courage to deschedule Merseyside, as Hunt proposed? If an area


has overcome its problems, let us de-schedule it and make more aid available to put into a viable condition those areas which have continuing problems.
I will sum up. No one doubts for a moment—and the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is certainly right about this—that the Northern Region has problems which are still immense. Nevertheless, I deplore his Motion, particularly that part of it which refers to the wasted years. I am certain that the vast majority of people in the Northern Region would like to go back to those years. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] We shall see at the polls. It is election year. They would certainly prefer the level of employment or unemployment which they had then rather than the level which they have now. They would prefer to go back to the level of taxation which we knew then rather than the level of taxation which we know now.
I appeal to hon. and right hon. Gentle men opposite to recognise that it is the central economic policy of the Government which has failed. I noted that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne. East (Mr. Rhodes) said just before the weekend that if our entry as a nation into the Common Market is bad for the North of England, he is against it. Like his Leader, the Prime Minister, he is good at instant publicity. Incidentally, any trust that anyone on this side of the House or anyone else in the country had in the Prime Minister must have disappeared altogether following his speech this weekend about the Common Market.
Surely the answer to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East is that if our entry into the Common Market is judged to be good for the nation economically and in terms of trade, it will be good for the North-East and for other development areas. The urgent need is to get a national economic policy which works. The only way in which we shall do that is by having a General Election and a Conservative Government.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: I will deal first with the last point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott). I wrote an article in the Evening Chronicle based on a detailed experience of Europe in the last few years,

for, with the possible exception of my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), I have probably spent more time in Europe in the last two years than anyone else in the Chamber. [HON. MEMBERS: "No"] I will not argue that. From a detailed examination of the regional policies of Europe, which I have made as a delegate to the Council of Europe, I stated that the evidence so far is that the North would lose out relative to the rest of the nation if we entered the Common Market and that unless we can get a stronger reassurance on this point I for one "would not be keen on out entry". That is all that I said, and I do not think it an unreasonable comment.
In his opening remarks the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North said that Newcastle industrialists are worried about the return of a Labour Government at the next election. In that case they must be very worried indeed, because they are also worried about the Conservative Party. Perhaps I might quote that staunch Conservative newspaper the Daily Telegraph which on 7th February referred to Conservative policies in relation to the regional employment premium:
Shippers fear a Tory victory.
Swan's profits would be wiped out.
Just as a modest improvement for Vickers was in sight, wham! knocked on the head by the disappearing premiums.
Already complaints have been lodged with Mr. Heath.
One can say that again. If it is argued that this is purely a speculative article on a national basis, let us consider the industrialists locally with whom the hon. Gentleman has been conferring, I gather, during the Christmas Recess. According to the Journal of 9th February, 1970, the Managing Director of Swan Hunter, Mr. McIvor, referring to the proposals of the Conservative Party on R.E.P., said:
It would be a blow.
Mr. Ronald Baker, the Commercial Director of Clarke Chapman, said:
It would make us less competitive and that would have an effect on unemployment.
Mr. Gordon Baker, Managing Director of Parsons, said:
If we were deprived of this source of income it would have a long-term effect.
It certainly would. I echo the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier), that it seems very odd that this company which.


as a result of R.E.P., receives £1½ million a year, and has recently contributed £4,000 to the campaigning funds of the party opposite, has now got kicked in the teeth. It is a very poor investment indeed. If the Tyneside industrialists are worried about the return of a Labour Government, there does not appear to be much consolation in the return of the party opposite either.
I wish to refer further to this R.E.P. issue, but before I do so I want to deal with a point in the speech of the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North in relation to the February unemployment figures. He has misread them. He said "Our Northern figures are worsening". That is not true. The February figures show a greater improvement in the northern region than in any other region in the United Kingdom. The improvement in the North was relative to the nation as a whole and was against the normal seasonal drift in February. Although I do not wish to make much out of one month, I think the point made by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North is invalid.

Mr. R. W. Elliott: I was comparing the figures for the northern region this year and last year as against the national picture. I repeat that the improvement is minimal and that the basic problem remains.

Mr. Rhodes: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman was comparing the figures with February, 1968, in terms of the relative improvement in that one month. I heard him say it. All I am saying is that this is the wrong comparison to make relative to the rest of the country. If, given the same climatic changes in the rest of the country, the North improves its position relative to the rest of the country, I welcome that change, as did the representatives of the North-East Development Council and other regional industrialists. However, I would not want to make too much out of one month.
I wish to refer now to the effects of the regional employment premium. This may be a unique occasion because it is probably the first time in the history of this House that three Members at present in the Chamber all represented one constituency — Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East.

Therefore, the issue that I am talking about will be of great interest to my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields, the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery), my old opponent sitting opposite.
I wish to refer to Swan Hunter and C. A. Parsons, the two biggest industrial firms in the north of England, I would guess. Parsons employs a very large number of men in the development areas. I believe that out of a labour force of 22,000, 16,000 are in development areas, and of those 16,000 half are in my constituency. The Swan Hunter consortium is probably the biggest industrial employer in the whole of the North of England. These two concerns employ about half of all workers in the constituency of Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East; plus many others from Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North, Wallsend and South Shields. These two industrial concerns, therefore, vitally affect the livelihood of half of my working constituents.
If the Tories are elected to power, I want to know what will happen with the abolition of the regional employment premium. I suggest that if R.E.P. is abolished on the basis put forward by Conservative leaders in the last few months, thousands—I use the word advisedly, not hundreds—thousands of people will be thrown out of work in my constituency alone.
Let us consider the shipbuilding industry. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) said that the improvement in shipbuilding was due to a boom in world shipping, and devaluation.

Sir K. Joseph: And other things.

Mr. Rhodes: And other things. The devaluation effects are now wearing off and the world shipbuilding boom is tapering off. I therefore concentrate on the regional employment premium. The Swan Hunter consortium last year made a profit of £ 1·.6 million, so it is estimated. In regional employment premium it received £1·5 million. That is why I say that, taking all the factors upon which the right hon. Gentleman put so much faith, that company would have made no profit whatsoever in the recent financial year and, in fact, would have been out of business.
The only alternative is that it would have had to put up its prices in a highly competitive world shipbuilding market, which will become even more competitive in the next three or four years, and it would have lost a half, if not two-thirds, of the present orders on its order books.
A few years ago when I was fighting the constituency against the hon. Member for Brierley Hill, I was worried, as I am sure he was, at the continual declining employment prospects in the Walker Naval Yard and the shaky position of C. A. Parsons which was losing orders on the home front because of a contraction in demand and was having difficulties in development costs in relation to the international market. These massive industrial concerns in the northern region are now booming at a tremendous rate. The shipyards are very busy with an enormous order book and they will be kept busy for several years. C. A. Parsons is so busy that in order to take on the work, it is having to cut back in important sections of other work.
These massive industrial concerns would lose a lot of money under the Tory Government's policy. Reyrolle Parsons received £1·5 million in regional employment premium—£78 per head for every worker. If it put up its prices it would lose orders in a highly competitive international market. Therefore, we have a particularly special problem on Tyneside in relation to this policy. Clarke Chapman received £400,000 in regional employment premium last year. True, that firm is not in my constituency, but it certainly would affect the constituencies of some Members who are present today.
I want to make a simple point. Half of my constituents depend upon the two industrial concerns. Both of these concerns rely upon heavy Government subsidies without which they would probably be out of business. In order to economise on public expenditure, the Conservative Party would cut out costly and what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North on 3rd February called inefficient and ineffective methods of distributing public money. They say that they are going to save on income tax. If they save on income tax by cutting down on Government aid in this way, it will not be much consolation to those workers in my constituency who are put out of work by these policies and who

would not get the benefits of reduced income tax, even if those benefits should materialise. This is a point to which we want an answer.
As this matter was publicised in the Newcastle Journal only a few days ago, I am surprised, if I may say so to the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North, whom I like very much, that he avoided this issue altogether. He may be leaving it to his right hon. Friend to deal with, but he should answer this question in his own constituency. When I go to the shipyards and to C. A. Parsons I sometimes meet the hon. Gentleman's constituents who ask what
will happen under this policy. This House wants to know the answer tonight. If the answer is, "We will find other ways of giving money equal to what they are now getting"—I am sure that the same will be said of other cuts that the Tories intend to make—I would like to know how hon. Gentlemen opposite will cut Government expenditure and taxation. The same could be said of housing, health, the social services and the rest, and this argument has been adduced pointedly by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister recently.
I am sure that the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North meant it in a friendly way when he referred to me personally and wondered if I modelled my speaking and publicity techniques on that of the Prime Minister. I do not know if I do. However, I never consult my right hon. Friend about what I intend to say in my constituency. Whether or not it is a technique that secures publicity I do not know, save that I am certain that the public are talking about the things which concern me and that I am concerned about the things that concern them.
I hope that the maximum publicity will be given by the local Press to the figures and forecasts that I have given, since I have given them following discussions with local industrial leaders, who, I am sure, appreciate that if they were to elect hon. Gentlemen opposite they would be jumping from the frying pan into the fire, particularly in view of Conservative policy for the abolition of R.E.P.
If the Conservatives were returned to power it would mean an end to the


propping up of local industries in the North. Their policies for the development areas would result in a quagmire of despair, particularly bearing in mind the full employment in the major industries in my constituency.
When I think of the number of hours that I have spent trying to negotiate major contracts for the big concerns in my area and wonder what all the effort that I and others have put in would stand for if the Conservatives were elected and they abolished R.E.P., I am dismayed. It would mean R.I.P. for a large number of people who are at present employed in the two large industrial concerns of which I have spoken.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: Which contracts has the hon. Gentleman brought to the Newcastle area?

Mr. Rhodes: I have said that I have negotiated with Ministers at the request of the managements of industrial concerns.
I have referred, in particular, to C.A. Parsons in relation to a series of orders that that firm has been wanting in recent years. I say this in public, and I do not think that any manager of Parsons will deny that I have wads of correspondence, all undertaken on their behalf, to get Government support for projects in which they have been interested, sometimes with a considerable degree of success, but not always.
That is not to take into account, for example, the job that that firm has done in putting in the power guts of the Alcan plant. The hon. Gentleman used to represent my constituency. He must have been approached by local industrialists. He must have done what I have done. I certainly hope that he did.
A free-for-all society in which the natural forces of the economy would suck in the commercially profitable enterprises, leaving the devil to take the hindmost, coupled with development area policies including the abolition of R.E.P., is the philosophy of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell); and what he says today the Leader of the Opposition says six months later.
The workers of Tyneside should be warned of the smooth, glib Tory policies

which, hon. Gentlemen opposite say, would mean a cut in Government expenditure. In fact, they would mean cuts in the enterprises which are today making Newcastle increasingly prosperous. [Interruption.] There is no need for hon. Gentlemen opposite to jeer. In my constituency there is full employment. Parsons is working at full pelt, and the same can be said of Swan Hunters. If hon. Gentlemen opposite who represent constituencies in the area do not know this, they know nothing about the region. These smooth, glib Tory policies cover a multitude of undigested, ill-thought-out, irresponsible ideas the consequence of which would be unmitigated disaster for the northern constituencies, and mine in particular.
My parting shot is a quotation from the local Jourtnal of Wednesday, 11th February. Bang in the centre of it appeared a picture of the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East. Headed:
What will the Tories do for the North-East?
this sympathetic article—I could disagree with three-quarters of it—contained this passage:
The development areas are not, after all, of very much political importance to the Tories. It is unlikely they would win much sympathy from the present North-East electorate, whatever policies they introduced.
Considering that that was written by a writer sympathetic to their policies, I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite do not care because the North-East does not hold much political kudos for them. My hon. Friends and I, on the other hand, do care. We represent these people and their best interests.

5.26 p.m.

Sir Keith Joseph: I very much regret having to ask the House to acquit me of discourtesy if I leave the Chamber almost immediately after speaking. I have a commitment which, if at all possible, should be honoured, and this will require my having to leave shortly after 6 o'clock. I have expressed by apologies to the Minister who will reply to the debate.
I also regret the tone adopted by the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) because his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) was not nearly as arrogant in his approach. If any hon. Gentleman


opposite can truthfully say that the present Government have got all the answers right and are doing wonderfully, then and only then can my hon. Friends and I be accused of not caring in our approach.
The simple fact is that the public and hon. Members generally should accept that all parties and all Governments, in the national interest and in their own self-interest, desperately want to get these things right. If my party has something to learn from its experience, and I am sure that it has, then the party opposite will find, when in opposition, that it has much to learn from its conduct and its regional policies as a result of its years in office.
We do not approach this debate in a polemical spirit, though we must answer the polemics. We approach it in a genuine desire to seek the truth about the best package of policies that will bring national and regional prosperity to the people of Britain. I thought that such political and factual points that were validly made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South were effectively countered by the excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott).
We all accept—this is the basis of what I am saying and I hope that the Minister will rest his speech on the same basis—that Governments of both parties are reaching out for the right solution. Neither party has yet found it to perfection. Thus, we must both learn from each other's and from our own experience.
Between 1951 and 1958 unemployment in the North was extremely low. For that reason there was not a debate on the subject between those years. Even in December, 1962, the Financial Times said in a dispassionate article on the subject that one of the post-war boom regions had been the North and that even then—in December, 1962—unemployment, though serious, was highly localised.
It is some evidence of the validity of the case that I am making about the 'fifties as a whole that in 1959 the Conservative Party increased its number of seats in the North. I do not say that as a final or conclusive argument but as evidence that during the 'fifties there was no disaster in the North.
The Minister may be entitled to say that, although there was very low unemployment during the fifties, the seeds of future trouble were perceptible. That may be so. Indeed, my hon. Friends and I are constantly pointing to present Government policies that are likely to yield a disastrous harvest; and only too often in the past we have been shown to be right. I have accepted already that we have something to learn from our experience.
By the time my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) went north at the turn of 1962–63, he was authorised by the then Conservative Government to set in hand a large investment and other programme, the fruits of which are now being garnered. We pay credit to the present Government for continuing the Hailsham programme to some extent, even during the squeezes and freezes of the past few years, but let us be quite clear where the credit for that surge of investment should go.
I turn to a factual statement about the present position. Factually, as compared with all other regions, it is the North, the region chosen by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South for today's debate, that has suffered more than any other from the freeze, the squeeze, and the lack of growth of the last three and a half years of the Labour Government's performance. Those figures can be checked against every index, but I will today choose only a few.
Taking March, 1969, the last available figure, and comparing it with 1964, there has been an absolute loss in the Northern Region of 33,000 jobs; that is a fall in employment of 2·6 per cent. Unemployment has risen to very nearly double the national average. For February, 1970, it is 5·2 per cent. in the Northern Region against 2·7 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. At present in the Northern Region about 66,000 are unemployed. That figure for totally unemployed has been exceeded only twice since the war; once during the severe winter of 1963, when we had the worst winter of the century, and once during the national fuel crisis of 1947. when it was at an even worse level.
During the 1950s and until 1964 the annual net emigration from the Northern


Region—and I am not proud of this figure—was 8,500 people. Since 1964, the net annual emigration from the region has been 10,000 a year. I could read to the House a long list of the high unemployment percentages in individual employment areas in the Northern Region. Most of the hon. Gentlemen sitting opposite represent these towns and they know well how bad the figures are: Bishop Auckland, 7·2 per cent., Chester-le-Street, 7 per cent., Consett, 6 per cent., Hartlepool, 6·3 per cent., Peterlee, 6·4 per cent., and so it goes on. In all cases the figures are worse than or just about the same as in 1964.

The Minister of State (Mr. T. W. Urwin): Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that each employment exchange area which he has quoted has been subjected to serious and severe job losses in the last four or five years, a problem which did not to the same extent concern the Conservative Government up to 1964?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, of course I do, but it was the cataclysm of the decline in the coalmining industry that caused the rising unemployment in the early 1960s which precipitated the visit of my right hon. and learned Friend the then Lord Hailsham. The coal decline hit the North like a tidal wave. It started at the end of the 1950s and made its full impact in the early 1960s and has increased since. The increase of output per man, and therefore the decline in total employment in the chemical, steel and shipbuilding industries occurred at the beginning of the 1960s and has continued in aggregate, becoming worse during the last few years. Of course, I give the point to the hon. Gentleman.
Behind all this is the one overwhelming fact which my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North so strongly brought out, that the national rate of growth has very nearly halved during the last few years. Whereas during the Conservative years of government the gross national product was growing at 3·8 per cent. a year, during the last few years it has been growing at 2·2 per cent. a year. It is this, above all, that has wrecked the Government's good intentions. Of course they have had good intentions. It is the general failure of

their national economic performance that has cast them into disaster.
Now in the North the indices are very sad. Whereas the vacancy rate—that is, the vacant jobs compared with the unemployed—is one to three for the nation as a whole, it is one to eight for the Northern Region. An even sadder fact is the 40 per cent. rise in long-term unemployment, and I hope the Minister of State will reply to this point. Whereas in October, 1966, 19 per cent. of the registered unemployed had been out of work for more than a year, by October, 1969, that figure had risen by 40 per cent. to 27 per cent, of the fulltime unemployed. Most of us who consider these matters recognise that it is not the less than eight weeks unemployment that is tragic for a man, but the long unemployment. That is why this figure more than any other is so serious.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would not want in any way to falsify the position. The long-term unemployment to which he refers relates mainly to miners who are 55 years of age and over and who are unlikely to get jobs easily. It is connected with the quick rundown of the mining industry.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, that may be so, but I doubt if it explains the whole rise. The rise as a whole is explained by the lack of new jobs in an economy that is not as buoyant as we should all like it to be.
I fear that I can add further depressing facts to the list that I have already produced. The earnings in the North are declining as a proportion of national earnings. They are now 13 per cent. below the national average earnings. The share in the North of the jobs likely to result from I.D.C.s granted has been falling. Whereas in 1964 22 per cent. of the I.D.C. jobs, that is, the jobs related to I.D.C. approvals, were for the North; in 1968, the last relevant figure, they were down to 13 per cent. There can be no doubt of the present unfavourable position of the Northern Region.
May I come now to the criticism that is made of the Government's policies, coupled with our own proposals. I must repeat that no region and certainly not the Northern Region will find prosperity


until the nation is prosperous. A buoyant national economy is the indispensable background to regional recovery and prosperity. That is why the economic disasters of the mistakes of the first few months and years of this Government are still levying their price on the people of this country, particularly in the regions.
I thought that the hon. Member for Sunderland, South was rather pathetic when he plaintively said, "Look at all the money we have been spending, where has it gone?" He is the first to recognise that, although the taxpayers' money spent has risen dramatically, it has not caused any proportionate change in the number of jobs available. The jobs available have fallen, although the taxpayers' money spent has increased by several times. It is because we recognise the discrepancy between expenditure and results that we propose a different set of policies from those of the present Government.

Mr. Bagier: Could not a possible explanation be that there has been a tremendous rundown in the number of jobs at the same time as the investment has taken place, and this must show up in the figures?

Sir K. Joseph: That is right, but we faced that, the Government face that and the next Government will face it. The question is, which is the best mix of polices to deal with it?
I will first repeat to the House the firm decisions that the Conservative Party has made and announced. We shall keep the development area boundaries as we find them and we shall keep them unless and until the problems of any particular region are seen to be on the way to solution. Secondly, we shall keep the industrial development certificate system. Thirdly, we shall keep an investments incentive differential in favour of the development areas and of shipbuilding. I am not qualifying these three statements; they are categoric.
Subject to the undertakings already given, we shall phase out the regional employment premium. The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East made heavy weather of this, and I shall try to deal with each of his points. First, the R.E.P. was always a temporary benefit. It was announced to come to an end in 1974. I have not heard the Government declaring that its temporary nature has

been removed and that the benefit is to continue. Perhaps that has been proposed, but I have not heard it and at the moment R.E.P. is temporary. I wish that I could hear an hon. Member opposite muttering "Over my dead body", but I do not think that I do. It was always a temporary benefit and all recipients, presumably, have recognised that they could not count on it for ever.

Dr. Bray: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that income tax was also temporary.

Sir K. Joseph: If the hon. Gentleman thinks that R.E.P. has the staying power of income tax, he had better think again. I am saying on behalf of my party that we intend to phase out R.E.P., subject to taking into account the undertakings which have been given.
If hon. Members opposite say, "What brutes you are!", because shipbuilding and other industries will complain that they cannot continue to receive R.E.P., let me remind them of what their own Government did about the selective employment premium, which had no particularly temporary status about it. It was withdrawn overnight in the sense that the withdrawal was announced a few months ago to take effect from April, this year. Many companies which had taken S.E.P. into account in long-term contracts found that they were not to get it and that their profit margins would, therefore, suffer. We do not intend to make any such abrupt withdrawal. There will be general notice of the phasing out of R.E.P.
Some firms in some industries come perilously close to receiving in R.E.P. something equivalent to their gross profits before taxation. I could happily quote other firms in the same industries whose gross profits before taxation are many times their income from R.E.P. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shipbuilding?"] I could quote several shipbuilding firms whose profits are many times what they get from R.E.P. I am delighted to say that, because I deny what the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East said about choice before the companies concerned. He said that these companies would have to increase prices, or their profits would vanish. Mercifully, there is a third alternative.
I gladly acknowledge that all shipbuilding companies are struggling to improve their efficiency and their productivity, and the third alternative is for them to be successful in improving their productivity and efficiency. Surely no one on either side of the House believes that it is other than debilitating for industries to make their profits entirely out of what the Government themselves describe as a temporary benefit.
If we have to face the political consequences with which the hon. Member threatened us, there will be another side to the coin. While we shall phase out R.E.P., we shall also bring to an end S.E.T., and for every one who is sad about the end of R.E.P., there will be at least one, if not two, who will rejoice at the end of S.E.T.
The hon. Member asked me how we would end the selective employment tax. I am glad that he acknowledges by that question that selective employment tax has been no friend to the regions. The S.E.T. has robbed the North, as it has robbed all other regions, of jobs, particularly in that area where the North, like all the other regions, is badly off, namely, employment for women. We all know that the activity rate in the North is below the national average. We all know that the effect of the S.E.T. has been to drive out of employment the marginal employees, particularly women, in the growing service trades.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that it is precisely among women where our problems in the North-East are least? Compared with the enormous need for openings for men we need remarkably few openings for women.

Sir K. Joseph: One of the constant pleas of the Northern Area Economic Development Council is that the activity rate for women should be increased. That does not quarrel with the need for an increase in jobs for men, but let us bring what prosperity we can to the region and not murder it by a discriminating tax like selective employment tax.
I now come to another of the changes which we propose to introduce. We propose to cease to pay automatic invest-

ment grants to all capital intensive projects regardless of whether they would have gone to the area concerned without the grant and regardless of the contribution they make to the area. I accept at once that capital intensive projects are very valuable, but the question in our mind is what is the point of spending automatically large sums of taxpayers' money in those instances when a valuable project might, or would have gone to the area anyway.
It is recognised by hon. Members opposite as well as by us that the vast proportion of the investment incentives go to the capital-intensive industries, particularly the chemical and oil industries. These are splendid industries, but is it altogether sensible that regional policy should pay firms to install machinery made outside the regions and which, in effect, will put people in the region out of work? We all welcome an increase in productivity and we all welcome an increase in mechanisation and a movement towards automation, but we do not think that we have actually to bribe firms to do that in the development areas with the taxpayers' money. There are better uses for the taxpayers' money.
Many of the improvements in output per man occur by the competitive process and are due to the general climate of the tax system and the economy as a whole. We shall certainly keep powers that will enable us to attract overseas investment, or other investment, that might or might not come to a particular development area according to whether there is help. We intend to move to a more flexible arrangement. We intend to unshackle ourselves from the automatic nature of the huge taxpayers' grants to capital-intensive projects. In this I would have thought that, in spirit anyway, we were moving in the direction approved by the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, West (Dr. Bray) and the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon).
We have not yet decided the exact method by which we shall do this, because there is a choice in our minds. We dislike very much giving Ministers discretion over when and where and to what extent to spend taxpayers' money, but we dislike even more the waste of taxpayers' money implicit in the present system. We should probably, therefore, use the Local


Employment Acts for the differential investment incentive for the development area, but I say that with the word "probably", because that decision has not yet been finally made. I stress that any changes to the investment incentives will not in any way be retrospective.

Mr. Edward Milne: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that his Government neglected investment in the capital-intensive industries? While it is easy now to talk about not giving incentives to capital-intensive industries, it is only by these industries that we are able to attract ancillary industries, which come to the North-East in their wake.

Sir K. Joseph: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right. I do not think that there has been any greater proportionate investment in capital-intensive industries while they have been in office than when we were in office. There was a surge of investment in the chemical, oil, steel, and motor industries in our time.
Hon. Members will want to know what we shall do with the savings we make. We shall use part of the aggregate savings made from phasing out R.E.P. and the change in the investment incentive arrangements to accelerate the improvement in communications, infrastructure, and training. Had I more time, I should enlarge upon the importance of training. Hon. Members opposite may say that the present training facilities are ample, and that the trade unions do not stand in the way of the employment of dilutees. I accept that trade union officials do not. It is the shop floor which sometimes stands in the way of the employment of dilutees. I accept that the retraining of adults must present great difficulties, but I ask the Government to accept that many industrialists say that the availability of skilled men is the key to whether they will or will not invest in an area.
We believe that the essential ingredient of regional policy which the Government have undervalued is the importance of improving the environment as a whole. We know that in the mix which the Government have adopted the environment has its place, but, by spending money on R.E.P., and by the wasteful nature of the investment incentive to capital-intensive projects, they are misusing taxpayers' money which would be far better employed in accelerating the

improvement to the environment, because the loss of high quality people is as much associated with the depressing environment as with the lack of jobs. We shall therefore use part of the savings for those purposes.
There was a theory among Ministers at one stage that R.E.P. did not really cost the taxpayer money, that it was, as I said in a previous debate, fairy gold, it came from nowhere, and was nice for those who received it. This was based on the belief that, as the money would be spent in a region which was under-employed, it would not really add to the inflationary pressures on the economy, and therefore would not have to be offset by an increase in taxation, or a cut in other Government expenditure. That theory is dead, because the Government were ready to use S.E.P.—which was paid in the same areas on much the same basis—as fairy gold, in hard cash employed, in the grey areas.
I think that that theory is dead, but, if it survives, I claim that our expenditure, our use of part of that saved money on improving the roads, on building houses and schools, on clearing derelict area, and so on, in the regions, will be just as little inflationary as R.E.P., and therefore will, to the extent that this is true of R.E.P., not need to be offset by higher taxation or by cuts in public expenditure, but I must express my own strong reservation about the fairy gold argument as applied to either.
On balance, therefore, while accepting that we and the Labour Party both have something to learn from our experiences in regional policy, we believe that the mix we propose, coupled particularly with the cuts in personal taxation, which will encourage the buoyancy of the economy if balanced by cuts in public expenditure, will be for the benefit of the regions as a whole, including the North.
As the debate is bound to have an element of the polemic about it, I must end my contribution to the debate with one quotation which comes most aptly from today's The Times Business News. In a report on the North-East, the writer, who is not known to me in any way, says:
During the 1960s Conservative government's have probably done more for the region than Labour.


We neither of us have the right to be content with what we have done. We beg the Government to consider whether they have got the mix of their policies right, because in the plaintive words of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South, though the expenditure has been large, the results have been disastrous.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. E. Fernyhough: The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) has tried to extract himself from a very difficult position. He has tried to spell out, so that no one in the development areas will be offended, what the Conservative Party hopes to do if ever it gets the chance by becoming the Government.
The thing that struck me about the right hon. Gentleman's speech was his peroration. He talked about infrastructure. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has ever examined the figures. Let him look at the number of houses built in the North-East during the last six years of Tory rule and compare that figure with the number of houses built in the last six years of Labour rule. Let him look at the new roads which have been constructed during the last six years, and compare those with what was planned but never constructed, and therefore never needed a penny, in the days when he was a member of the Government.
The basic truth is that anyone who went to any part of the North-East would think that an atomic bomb had been dropped there. Whether in relation to roads, the clearing of slums, the building of new schools, or the development of city and shopping centres, in almost every part of the North-East there is to be witnessed today that which was never evident before, at least not in my lifetime.
The right hon. Gentleman said that we must all try to learn from our experiences. I shall not quote the right hon. Gentleman, because I think that he has tried to learn. I think that we, too, have something to learn. I think that perhaps we did underestimate the magnitude of the task which needed to be done in the development areas, but I do not believe that anybody could have foreseen the rundown in the mining industry, in agriculture, in marine engineering, and in the

railways as a result of Beeching. The North-East has lost more jobs in those four industries than the present total of unemployment. If this unemployment had been similar to unemployment in the past, I do not know how I should have been able to contain myself.
I want hon. Gentlemen opposite—and one or two of them have been here for a long time—to realise that there is a difference between unemployment under this Administration and under any previous one. Unemployment under every previous Administration was accompanied by degrading poverty. If a man had no job, his home and children suffered. There was hardly enough, as it were, to keep body and soul together. I am glad that it was a Labour Government who recognised that if the country was to undergo a second industrial revolution we had to see to it that the victims did not face the same hardships as were faced by those who experienced the first one.
Our redundancy payments and our wage related benefits have removed that aspect of unemployment which brought countless thousands into the Labour movement. In pre-war days, when there were marches and demonstrations by the unemployed, our banners had inscribed across the top, "Work or Maintenance". A civilised society ought to accept that, and this Government have done so. We have acted in a civilised way to those who become the victims of the second industrial revolution. But, given the massive contraction which we have seen in mining, marine engineering, agriculture and the railways, unless one had the powers of a commissar it would have been very difficult to deal with the situation.
Hon. Members opposite who have criticised us should examine the facts. Let them look at the number of i.d.c.s which have been granted in the last six years as against the previous six years. Let them remember, too, that, just as a colliery employing 2,000 people which closes today spent many years building up to that 2,000 level, many new industries starting with 100, 200 or 300 employees will take the best part of a decade to employ the maximum number. It is very much like the man who goes to a new house and sees the garden as the builders have left it. He thinks that,


with a little sweat and effort, he can clear the lot in six months. He attacks it with vigour and determination. At the end of six months, all that he has is a heap of stones and brickbats. He found a lot hidden under the surface of which he was not aware. There was a lot hidden in the development areas about which we did not know, especially in the North-East. It was only when we were able to open the files and see the true position that we appreciated the magnitude of the task.
Three years ago, one of my right hon. Friends criticised me somewhat harshly because I said that I thought that it would take a decade for us to make the North-East, Scotland and South Wales equivalent to the rest of the country. Anyone who looks at the infrastructure and the industrial problems there must accept that it will not be possible in a year or two to make Northumberland, Durham and Cumberland the equivalents of Hampshire, Sussex, and so forth. We have paid too big a price for too much being taken out and too little being put in. It is only now, under a Labour Government, that attempts are being made to make amends.
I am as appalled as anyone at the present unemployment situation. I had to answer for it at the Dispatch Box for the best part of three years. I was never very happy about it. Any society which denies a man the dignity and self-respect which come from the ability to earn his living is somewhat uncivilised. It is even more uncivilised if, having put him in that position, it does not maintain him. Despite our mistakes and limitations, we can say truthfully that we have removed the spectre of poverty from the lives of our unemployed. If we have done nothing else in this Parliament, I shall always be proud of that, because it was the failure of previous Governments in this direction which embittered me in my youth.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Antony Lambton: We have listened to the debate so far with great interest, and we are grateful to the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) for bringing the subject before us.
At the outset, I must say that I was a little disappointed with the speech of the

hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). It seems to me that what we want in the North-East now is new ideas, new plans and new constructions—what the Prime Minister used to call a dynamic approach. It is hardly a dynamic approach or one which will help the area very much to dwell on some of the benefits of unemployment.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South made a powerful but in some ways curious speech. In the North-East today we have a male rate of unemployment of 7 per cent., which is 1·6 per cent. higher than that of any other area, and a whole rate of unemployment of 5·2 per cent. which is 1 per cent. higher than any other rate in the country.
This is only part of an unfortunate pattern. If we look at what is happening in the North-East, it is clear that not so many houses are being built as were being built. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) said in a powerful speech, it is clear that there is double taxation, food prices were never higher, and there is the general squeeze. Notwithstanding that, hon. Gentlemen opposite take this as an occasion to congratulate the Government on what they have done in the North-East. That is rather extraordinary.
It was only a month or so ago that the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) told the Chancellor of the Exchequer that, whereas politicians are always saying how bad things were in the old days, a lot of people wish that they were back there now when they consider what this Government have done. If we look at what is happening now, where can we see any hopeful signs in the North-East today? Where are the plans to end unemployment?

Mr. Fernyhough: If the hon. Gentleman cannot see the answer in terms of housing, roads, schools, and reclaiming the pit heaps that his forebears left behind, he needs to change his optician.

Mr. Lambton: We are having a constructive debate. A remark to me about the pit heaps which my forebears left behind is typical of the totally unconstructive views put forward by hon. Gentlemen opposite. There is too much talk of 13 years of waste. What is needed in the North-East today is new


industries and the dynamism of which the Prime Minister used to talk. It is pointless to dwell upon the benefits of unemployment and to throw cheap insults across the Floor of the House. It is typical of hon. Members opposite that at a time like this they can think of nothing new. Their speeches all dwell on the last nine or 13 wasted years and on what has not been done. Where are the schemes to do away with unemployment? Where are the plans. That is what we want to hear. We are not hearing it. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite will be judged by what they produce.

Mr. Rhodes: May I remind the hon. Gentleman that I did not refer to the past? I spoke of the regional employment premium policy and its effects on my constituency. Would the hon. Gentleman care to refer to that?

Mr. Lambton: It has been referred to already by my right hon. Friend the Shadow Minister. He answered it fully, and I did not see the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Rhodes) challenge his answer.

Mr. Rhodes: Because it was so disgraceful.

Mr. Lambton: Let me refer to one island of prosperity in the whole North-East. I mean the situation in Washington new town. When we had a similar debate a few months ago, I made some criticisms of the very large-scale development in Washington new town compared with the industry not being brought to neighbouring areas like Sunderland. This called forth a rather sharp response from the Chairman of Washington new town, Sir James Steel, who seemed to disagree rather with what I had said.
No one has a greater admiration for Sir James Steel than I have. He is a first-class executive in every sense of the word, and anyone who has seen anything of Washington new town can only be impressed by all he has done. Yet there are certain questions about the kind of industry going to Washington new town that are relevant to the whole situation in the North-East. How many people will be employed by the end of 1971 in the industries now being built in the new town? What will be the population of the new town then? A large number of

industries are springing up there, and it seems to me that they will be filled with people from the neighbouring towns—from Sunderland, Chester-le-Street and Birtley—which are not being given any really new industries. The area is being starved for Washington.
This being so, what will happen in Washington when the housing catches up and people come in to take the jobs now filled by those coming from Sunderland? Is this problem being carefully considered? What is the number of people that it is proposed shall eventually be employed in the industries in the new town? What will be the town's population? Is it wise that there should be a pressing ahead with housing in Washington if it means taking away jobs from people in Sunderland and the other surrounding towns?
Has the development of Washington new town been thought of within the context of the whole area? It would be a great pity if people from the neighbouring towns became accustomed to coming into Washington for a number of years, so that industries were not brought to them, and then gradually, as the new town grew and people were brought into the area, the old locals were left out of a job in the neighbourhood. I would very much like the Minister of State to go into this subject.
The time has come when the industrial development of the new town should be carefully related to the number of people in it and to the building of new houses. I can only repeat that what I say is in no way critical of the efficiency of the chairman of the new town. Perhaps he is too successful in doing this job in the context of the area as a whole.
I did not want to be contentious at the beginning. What we all want on both sides of the House is to see an end to the high rate of unemployment in the North-East, to see more industries brought to the area and not to see the area suffering compared with the rest of the country, as it did in the past. These are the things we should be concentrating our minds on rather than dwelling on the past, which will get us nowhere.

6.14 p.m.

Mr. Ron Lewis: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for


Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) on initiating yet another debate on the whole question of the Northern Region. I was a little disappointed with the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Lambton), because he fell into the trap a number of speakers from both sides of the House fell into of talking about the North-East in particular when we are discussing the North in general. I remind the House that the Northern Region stretches from one coast of England right across to the other.
I come from an area which has known the spectre and shadow of unemployment for over 40 years. I refer to West Cumberland. In the short time that I have I wish to deal exclusively with the part of the Northern Region that is well known to me.
We in Carlisle and Cumberland have much for which to be grateful to the Labour Government and the policies that they have pursued in our part of the country. At long last we are beginning to see tangible results. The county of Cumberland and its capital city form a very scattered community with long lines of communication. We are geographically somewhat remote, but we are still part and parcel of the Northern Region, and our people in the North-West are as important as those in the North-East.
It is pleasing to note that for the past five years we have not been overlooked. Our position was such before 1964 that but for the Labour Government our area would have become derelict, because we suffered from intense unemployment, particularly in West Cumberland. Our prospects today are very bright. I am one of those who hold the view that as a result of the policies pursued during the past five years the position in my part of the country will have changed considerably in less than two years from now. New industries are beginning to take shape, bringing employment for our people and with it a rising standard of living.
It was under the present Government that the training centre was built at Maryport, bringing with it new skills and training for our people. My only regret is that up to a short time ago it was not fully used; I gather that it could take still more people.
But for the Labour Government, I believe that Cumberland industry would have been written off. Here I would like to pay my tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Newton (Mr. Frederick Lee) who was the first "Minister for the North". The Opposition classed his appointment as a gimmick, but I am convinced that during his short stay in that job he did a wonderful job for Cumberland in particular. I can only hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will continue the good work my right hon. Friend started, and I am sure that he will.
The question every elector in my part of the country will have to ask at the coming General Election is whether to carry on with the Labour Government's policies or to follow the policies outlined by the Conservatives, which I gather would stop cash grants coming to areas like Cumberland.
It has been said that we have thrown money down the drain. This is not the case so far as my people in Cumberland are concerned because we are now beginning to see the results of five years' work. In my constituency alone new industries have been brought to the city, bringing not only employment and competition but also more rateable value and capital. We have new factories like Pirelli's, which is employing a large number of people; we have Courtaulds coming to Carlisle. I am told that the question of trying to obtain female employment in my part of the area is getting rather desperate. Therefore, we have much for which to be grateful to this Government. New roads are in the course of construction, and the Carlisle by-pass should be open towards the end of this year. A start has been made with the inner ring road of my city.
However, one of the desperate problems is that of housing, both for general needs and also for industrial purposes. It has been the Tory-controlled council which has failed to deliver the goods, because it has not taken any initiative in attempting until lately to build houses. I can only hope that, in view of the urgent need for skilled labour in my part of the area, the local authorities, the industrialists and also the Government will get together in an attempt to iron


out the needs because of our desperate housing shortage.
Then there is the question of very small firms employing only a handful of people. I gather that at the moment it is almost impossible for small firms to get grants. We have these small firms scattered throughout the county of Cumberland. I hope that in future some consideration will be given to these because of the large number of small firms which we have in our area. Grants which we have received so far have been of great advantage to Carlisle and Cumberland, but we still have a long way to go.
For some time now we have been trying to establish an airport. Some £50,000 has been spent to date. As air transport will be one of the main modes of transport in future I can only hope that this Government will help us all they can, not only in retaining our airport but also in expanding it to meet the needs of the late 'seventies and the 'eighties.
I was particularly delighted with the statement made today by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport regarding electrification from Weaver Junction onwards to Scotland. This will be a boon to my part of the country, not only passenger-wise but also for the transport of goods. I hope that this great project will be proceeded with as quickly as possible. I am a railwayman and I declare my interest, but I hope that, in that vast contract which will be undertaken, British Railways themselves will be given an opportunity of showing their skill and of helping with this great undertaking.
I make no apology for referring to my constituency because, if I cannot refer to it here, I ought not to be in this House, but I am particularly concerned about some of the school buildings in my area, in particular some of our infants' schools, and also some of our primary schools, which were built years and years ago. I refer to Bishop Goodwin Infants' School, Upperby Primary School, Stanwix Primary School and Petterill Bank Primary School. All these schools need replacing, and I hope that my right hon. Friend will look very favourably at these projects the next time he is looking at this aspect of his policy. Likewise, the Newman Roman Catholic comprehensive

school; even now additional accommodation is needed to meet the needs of the Catholics' children. I visualise that, if we are not careful, some of the schools in my area will be overcrowded by between 8 per cent. to 10 per cent.—not a very good prospect.
One other matter concerns at least one part of Cumberland. I am told that there is likely to be a water shortage in west Cumberland. I am informed that every effort is being made to overcome this difficulty, as is absolutely essential because of the new industry which is now coming to Cumberland, the great new project of the bus company in consultation with Lord Stokes's company. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister only on Friday last started it running. For that, too, we are very grateful to this Government. I hope that this water shortage will at least be looked at so that, in the not too distant future, that problem will be solved.
Finally, I should like to make one more reference to the Solway barrage. The Solway barrage has been under review for some considerable time. To my part of the country, it is a vital matter, and I can only hope that the rumour which has now emanated to my part of the county, that the Solway barrage project is likely to be completely abandoned, is false. I am hoping that my hon. Friend will have another look at this today. Not only that, but I hope that, as Minister responsible for the North, he will initiate a public inquiry, so that every matter associated with the Solway barrage can be brought out and we can see the facts for ourselves. I hope my hon. Friend will look at that matter.
Isolated though we are, we in our part of the country have a lot to be grateful for, and I can only hope that the wonderful work which has been started during the last four and a half years, after so much talk, will continue during the years ahead.

6.29 p.m.

The Minister of State (Mr. T. W. Urwin): The Motion congratulates the Government on pursuing policies aimed at assisting the Northern development area and invites the House to take note of the grave threat which the Selsdon Park proposals pose for that area. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Bagier) for raising


these issues, although I trust that he and other hon. Gentlemen will forgive me if I begin by generalising.
This provides me with a further opportunity to remind the House that the Labour Government have laid great emphasis on the pursuit of a positive regional policy. They have done so not simply because such a policy makes good sense from a national economic point of view but also because they believe that there are powerful reasons of social justice for seeking to correct the imbalance between the more and the less prosperous areas of the country. It is because of the importance attached to regional development that I have listened most attentively to hon. Members opposite to hear what it is they find wrong with what we are doing and what they want to put in its place.
There has certainly been much criticism, some of it conflicting. Some members of the Opposition seem to think we do too much, others that we do not do enough, but I must confess that I am still in the dark about what the Opposition really do propose as complete alternative regional policy. There has been a good deal of vageness even in what has been said in this short debate. Of course, I suppose it is a bit too much to expect a coherent policy to emerge from hon. Members on the back benches opposite when, it is apparent, there are fundamental disagreements on the Opposition Front Bench. But, if we are to discuss these important issues intelligently, it is no use the Opposition trying to face all ways at once.
Reference has been made to a more selective application of Government policies. If hon. Members want more selectivity based not in areas but on individual firms, as I understood the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East (Sir K. Joseph) to say, we need a further explanation of on what basis selective assistance can be given and how it can be given fairly promptly and in a way which will ensure that industry can take decisions without wondering whether particular projects are to be assisted or not. If they want more infrastructure, nearly all of which would be very costly, what are their priorities and how do they match the savings which they say could be made in assistance to industry? It is no good talking about more infrastructure generally: more infrastructure involves

investment projects in particular parts of the country. To what projects would the Opposition give first priority?

Mr. Nicholas Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is trying, rather heavily, to twit my right hon. Friend for not giving specific policies, down to the crossing of the last "t" and the dotting of the last "i". Does he recall that his Government never even announced before the 1964 General Election that they would institute 40 per cent. investment grants and a regional employment premium?

Mr. Urwin: I was not accusing the right hon. Gentleman of not crossing t's and dotting i's. As a result of the constructive proposals and questions put by my hon. Friends, I had expected that he would be more explicit than he was.
In the complete absence of a coherent Opposition policy, I can only deal with the isolated propositions that have been aired. It has been suggested that the Government would do better to spend less money on financial inducements paid directly to industry in the development and intermediate areas and more money on improving infrastructure. I do not dispute that improvements in communications and other forms of infrastructure are an important means of enabling industry to operate with full efficiency in the assisted areas. Infrastructure improvements are thus an essential element in regional policy: but the need for better infrastructure is not confined to the development and intermediate areas.
When infrastructure is discussed, many people think first of roads. We need new roads to get raw materials into and finished products out of the development areas: but this need has to compete with the need for improved roads in, say the South-East and the Midlands to carry exports from the factory to the port. One point which the Conservatives might remember if they want to win the next Election is that far more money is being spent in the Northern Region on road construction than ever before.
The Government do not take the view that there is never a case for bringing forward infrastructure programmes in order to stimulate regional growth. The Industrial Development Act 1966 and the Local Employment Bill which we have recently been debating provide for the


improvement of infrastructure, as regards both basic services and the clearance of dereliction, in order to promote industrial development, and I would remind the House that the Government have brought forward specific projects to aid regional development, for example, the building of a bridge across the Humber estuary. It will be of vital importance to the economic growth and development of that very large area. It is easy to be dogmatic in this field and to take up extreme positions, but to my mind the Government's view is the only sensible one; namely, that financial inducements to industry and improvements in infrastructure both have an important role to play in stimulating industrial growth.
Then there have been criticisms of the cost of investment grants. If we compare the cost of the present investment grant scheme and the associated capital allowances with the whole of the previous system of capital allowances and local employment grants, it is expected that over a period the present system will cost much the same as the previous system would have cost had it continued. The difference is that the cost of incentives is, with investment grants, unlike investment allowances, clear for all to see. Do the Opposition believe that it is wrong to know exactly what we, as a nation, are spending our money on?

Mr. Ridley: This argument is bunkum. Does not the hon. Gentleman realise that investment grants go to private companies which are not earning profits and that, therefore, the total amount received would be very much less, because unprofitable industries would not be receiving it? Would he not please take that into account before making such silly statements?

Mr. Urwin: I am not making any silly statements. I have said that the cost would be no different over an accounting period if we reverted to the system which the hon. Gentleman mentions. More important, it is urgently necessary for the system to continue in the development areas to provide much-needed new employment opportunities.
We have had the usual misunderstanding about relating the payment of investment grants to such criteria as the number of jobs provided. It has not been

insisted upon in this debate as much as it has on previous occasions but the hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) raised the cry which is heard loudest of all, that of "selectivity". This is raised by those who are first to criticise what they see as Government intervention in the free choice of industry. Selectivity is an important question, and since the Opposition attach so much importance to it, I should like to deal with it for a moment.
As with so many cures prescribed for regional ills, the name of the medicine is bandied about without any real attempt to analyse the contents of the bottle. Hon. Gentlemen opposite call for greater "selectivity" in assistance to industry as an element of regional policy—this point was made again today in relation to investment grants—yet we are still awaiting for a reasoned statement of the problem from them.
It is argued that investment grants should be selective in the sense that they should not be paid to projects which do not create a certain number of new jobs. But, as I have explained on many occasions, the purpose of investment grants is not just to create new employment in development areas; it is to stimulate investment there, particularly investment in modern science-based industries, much of which is capital intensive, to replace the traditional industries whose decline is largely responsible for the difficulties of the development areas.
Have hon. Gentlemen opposite thought how grants for plant and machinery could, on a selective basis, be linked to a particular number of jobs? What number of jobs does one estimate for a firm's purchase of, say, fork lift trucks, a conveyor belt or replacement machine tools? Also do hon. Gentlemen opposite want the level of grant related to the quality of job created—so much for unskilled jobs and more for jobs of higher skill? If so, perhaps they will explain how this would be assessed and administered. They made no attempt to explain it today.
We hear that investment grants should not be automatic but they should be paid for projects of "particular value" to the development areas. But hon. Gentlemen opposite have still to tell us how they would define "particular


value". Do they mean that special assistance should be given to a particular firm because the Government believe that its product will have especially good export prospects? Which of us could confidently predict that the new products of one firm have better export prospects than the products of another? Also, what of special assistance for firms in development areas which make components that go into products exported by other firms, or machinery for their use? Is the production of such firms of "particular value" and, therefore, to be given the "selective assistance" advocated by hon. Gentlemen opposite?
Criticism is often made in this House and elsewhere that, even with the greater predictability of the assistance administered by the Government, firms too often find it difficult to predict exactly what support their projects will attract. We recognise that there is a problem here, and we do our best to create a climate, where Government action is concerned, in which industry can make informed investment appraisals. But with the "selective" assistance advocated by the Opposition, apparently without "ground rules", industry could rightly complain that investment appraisal was likely to be as scientific as assessing prospects for an evening's bingo.
Since selective assistance would mean that millions of individual applications for assistance would have to be examined in detail each year, and in a vast number of cases discussed with the firms applying for selective assistance, are hon. Gentlemen opposite also saying that this could be done without a major increase in the size of the Civil Service?
I am certainly not saying that there is no scope for a more selective form of assistance to industry. We must—and do—watch the operation of our policies closely to be as sure as we can that we get value for money, and we are always ready to consider new ways of getting better value for money. But it is no use hon. Gentlemen opposite talking vaguely of "selectivity" without concrete proposals which can be examined in depth. So far no such proposals have come from the party opposite.
But there is an aspect in all of this that I would most seriously ask the House, and especially hon. Gentlemen opposite, to take into account. The

present Government have, in their regional policy, recognised the difficulties which frequent changes in the pattern of assistance cause to firms when they want to make investment decisions. This was one of the reasons which led us to abandon the development district concept, since industry could have no confidence that particular places would not be struck off the list with very little ceremony.
It was with such considerations in mind, too, that we stressed our intention of continuing payments to firms receiving R.E.P. at the present level for not less than seven years. I believe that every industrialist would agree that our policy of maintaining as steady an investment environment as possible is the right one. But now industry is being subjected to a good deal of unconstructive criticism and a stream of shadowy propositions—I cannot call them anything more substantial. The effect of this on industry must be unsettling. My complaint against hon. Gentlemen opposite is not that they have different views from ours; it is that they have no views at all. We would welcome serious discussion of these very important issues, but there can be no informed debate when one of the sides has no opinions to offer.
The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East said that R.E.P. would be phased out. In the unfortunate and unlikely event of the Conservatives winning the next election, we gather that that would be their policy. I take it that the right hon. Gentleman appreciates the serious damage that he is doing to the confidence of investors in the development areas. For example, he has not said whether the assurance that we have given about R.E.P. being paid for seven years up to 1974 will continue, or whether it will be phased out immediately after the election if the Conservatives take office.

Sir K. Joseph: We have said consistently that we will phase out R.E.P., taking into account the undertakings that have been given. Would the hon. Gentleman say whether the Government propose to make R.E.P. permanent.

Mr. Urwin: We have given an assurance that R.E.P. will be paid for seven years and we have said both inside and outside the House that all aspects of


regional policy are subject to continual review. We have kept our promises to the coal mining industry, which the Conservatives did nothing to help, and we would like to know whether they would continue the special measures to aid displaced miners beyond 1971, as we propose.

Mr. Michael Shaw: Mr. Michael Shaw (Scarborough and Whitby) rose—

Mr. Urwin: I have much to say and little time in which to say it.

Mr. Shaw: I have been trying to intervene for a long time.

Mr. Urwin: I regret that I cannot give way any further.
S.E.T. has been mentioned by a number of hon. Members as one of the causes of unemployment in the Northern Region. The right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East mentioned it and said that he would deal with the subject, but he did not. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South referred to S.E.T. as having been one of the items discussed at the Selsdon Park conference, that so-called great policy-making discussion of the Conservatives which sparked off general election talk much sooner than it would otherwise have arisen.
One of the few unambiguous comments made by hon. Gentlemen opposite has been in connection with their decision to abolish S.E.T., but the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East was coy about what he would put in its place. Hon. Gentlemen opposite say that they are considering a broad-based tax such as a value-added tax, but they will not bring in £600 million a year merely by contemplation.
Hon. Members opposite say there would be wide exemptions for food and other essentials. But a tax of this kind would still cover a much wider range of goods and services than S.E.T., and would, therefore, be much more far-reaching in its effects. Nor has there been any suggestion so far that a value-added tax would be varied regionally any more than S.E.T., so I do not see that there would be any advantage from a regional point of view.
I quite understand that a tax which is designed to transfer labour from services and construction to manufacturing must seem less relevant in areas where there is already high unemployment. Hon. Members have suggested that the position would be greatly improved if there could be special relief for particular industries and particular areas. There are two points I would like to make about that.
First, I should point out that anyone who suggests a new boundary, whether physical or industrial, has to be able to justify it to those who are on the wrong side. If there should be relief for the construction industry, one has to be able to justify restricting to that industry—and to the Northern development area. If construction, then why not consulting engineers; and if consulting engineers, why not accountants, and so on? Similarly, if relief is to be given to the Northern development area, what about the other development areas? In the end, one comes down to, at the very least, complete relief from S.E.T. in the development areas, at a cost of something like £120 million a year.
My second point is that, whilst hon. Members opposite are very keen on the idea of cost-effectiveness in public expenditure, they do not seem to be so rigorous when it comes to reducing taxation. But there is really very little difference. Giving away £120 million in tax relief would have to be financed by increases in other taxes, just as an increase in expenditure would. Also if we thought it necessary to spend another £120 million on help for the development areas, relief from S.E.T. certainly would not be the most cost-effective way of doing it. Unlike manufacturing industry, services cater mainly for a local market. Relief from S.E.T. would, therefore, not help services in the development areas to increase their share of the national market in the way that R.E.P. helps manufacturing industry.
I have so far spoken mainly in broad terms, and this is right, as the implications of the issues raised are by no means confined to the North, but I now turn to the particular case of the North.
Some of the benefits accruing to the Northern Region as a result of the present balanced and flexible measures of


assistance have been mentioned in the debate. It is difficult to believe that any Member on either side can reasonably be in doubt about the solid advantages that Government policy has already brought, and will increasingly bring, to the area, and about the extent to which the foundations of a new diversified, industrial structure, are being laid through direct incentives to industrial development, through other forms of assistance to older industry and through the outstanding incresase in public expenditure on new building—roads, housing, schools—since 1965–66.
I remind hon. Members opposite, when they are talking about the Hailsham programme of 1963–64, that public investment in new construction has risen since that time throughout the nation by 97·1 per cent., but it has risen in the northern region by 142·5 per cent. That is a dramatic increase—

Mr. Elliott: Mr. Elliott rose—

Mr. Urwin: —in what the—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Noise never makes an hon. Member give way.

Mr. Elliott: Mr. Elliott rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. R. W. Elliott) must keep his seat.

Mr. Urwin: When the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends opposite talk about what they have done for the Northern Region, I must say that anything they did was very much belated. All these problems were seen to be arising long before 1964, and the right hon. Gentleman is very wrong when he says that job loss in the coalmining industry was at its peak in 1964. There has never before been such a dramatic rundown in employment opportunities in the country as a whole as there is at this time, and the right hon. and learned Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Hogg) came rather belatedly to the Northern Region to try to resolve the problem.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Lambton) talked about the necessity to spend more on the clearance of dereliction in order to improve the

environment in the Northern Region. I would remind the hon. Member that throughout the period 1951–59 the Conservative Government withdrew completely all grants to local authorities for the clearance of dereliction.

Mr. Lambton: I never mentioned this subject.

Mr. Urwin: The hon. Member talked about improving the environment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) challenged him. I am repeating for the benefit of the House that in the period 1951–59 the Conservative Government paid out not one penny of grant to local authorities for clearance of dereliction. At least the right hon. Member for Leeds, North-East nods his head in agreement. Again, there has been a dramatic increase in the amount spent in the Northern Region with the co-operation of quite a large number of local authorities in this important clearing of derelict land.
I rehearsed most of these details when replying to the debate on a Motion proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) on 1st December. It should not have been necessary to remind hon. Gentlemen of them, as I am sure that I then referred to the same facts.
Job creation is a continuing process and estimates of jobs arising in the region are regularly revised. There are currently 43,300 jobs—over 30,000 of them for men—estimated to arise over the next four years, and this is ample testimony to the valuable results being obtained by Government policies, against all the stagnation for which hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite were responsible.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, North talks about the "pipeline". I have never used that word. I refer to jobs in prospect. It is the Northern Echo, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, which talked about the myth of the pipeline. The right hon. Members for Bexley (Mr. Heath) and Leeds, North-East, and every right hon. Gentleman opposite who has ever done the kind of job for which I now have some responsibility, have talked in terms of jobs in the pipeline, but every job that has now materialised


was at some time or other a job in the pipeline. The extent to which the industrial basis is being broadened in the Northern Region is plain to see, and I

ask my colleagues to reject the Motion—I mean, accept the Motion.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 284, Noes, 146.

Division No. 70.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Eadie, Alex
Latham, Arthur


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Ellis, John
Lawson, George


Alldritt, Walter
English, Michael
Ledger, Ron


Allen, Scholefield
Ennals, David
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)


Anderson, Donald
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold (Cheetham)


Armstrong, Ernest
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)


Ashley, Jack
Faulds, Andrew
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)


Ashton, Joe (Bassetlaw)
Fernyhough, E.
Lipton, Marcus


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Finch, Harold
Lomas, Kenneth


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Loughlin, Charles


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Fletcher, Rt. Hn. Sir Eric(Islington, E.)
Luard, Evan


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)


Barnes, Michael
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Barnett, Joel
Foley, Maurice
McBride, Neil


Baxter, William
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McCann, John


Beaney, Alan
Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacColl, James


Bence, Cyril
Ford, Ben
MacDermot, Niall


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Fowler, Gerry
Macdonald, A. H.


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Fraser, John (Norwood)
McElhone, Frank


Bidwell, Sydney
Freeson, Reginald
McGuire, Michael


Binns, John
Gardner, Tony



Bishop, E. S.
Garrett, W. E.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret


Blackburn, F.
Ginsburg, David
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Golding, John
Mackie, John


Booth, Albert
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mackintosh, John P.


Boston, Terence
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Maclennan, Robert


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Boyden, James
Gregory, Arnold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Bradley, Tom
Grey, Charles (Durham)
McNamara, J, Kevin


Bray, Dr. Jeremy
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Brooks, Edwin
Gunter, Rt. Hn. R. J.
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)


Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. (Huddersfield, E.)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hannan, William
Mapp, Charles


Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Harper, Joseph
Marks, Kenneth


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Marquand, David


Buchan, Norman
Haseldine, Norman
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hazell, Bert
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Maxwell, Robert


Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Heffer, Eric S.
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert


Carmichael, Neil
Henig, Stanley
Mendelson, John


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Mikardo, Ian


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Hilton, W. S.
Millan, Bruce


Chapman, Donald
Hobden, Dennis
Miller, Dr. M. S.


Coe, Denis
Hooley, Frank
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Coleman, Donald
Horner, John
Molloy, William


Conlan, Bernard
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Morris, John (Aberavon)


Cronin, John
Howie, W.
Moyle, Roland


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, Albert


Darling, Rt. Hn. George
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Newens, Stan


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Hunter, Adam
Norwood, Christopher


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Hynd, John
Ogden, Eric


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur
O'Halloran, Michael


Davies, Rt. Hn. Harold (Leek)
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
O'Malley, Brian


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Oram, Bert


Davies, S. 0. (Merthyr)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Orbach, Maurice


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St. P'cras, S.)
Orme, Stanley


Delargy, H. J.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Oswald, Thomas


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Padley, Walter


Dempsey, James
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Dewar, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Palmer, Arthur


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Dickens, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Park, Trevor


Doig, Peter
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Driberg, Tom
Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Dunn, James A.
Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pentland, Norman


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)




Prentice, Ht. Hn. Reg.
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Wallace, George


Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Weitzman, David


Price, William (Rugby)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Wellbeloved, James


Probert, Arthur
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Randall, Harry
Silverman, Julius
Whitaker, Ben


Rankin, John
Skeffington, Arthur
White, Mrs. Eirene


Rees, Merlyn
Slater, Joseph
Whitlock, William


Rhodes, Geoffrey
Snow, Julian
Wilkins, W. A.


Richard, Ivor
Spriggs, Leslie
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)




Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Willis, Rt. Hn. George


Robertson, John (Paisley)
Taverne, Dick
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Roebuck, Roy
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
Winnick, David


Rose, Paul
Tinn, James
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Tuck, Raphael
Woof, Robert


Rowlands, E.
Urwin, T. W.
Wyatt, Woodrow


Ryan, John
Varley, Eric G.



Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Sheldon, Robert
Walden, Brian (All Saints)
Mr. William Hamling and


Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mr. R. F. H. Dobson.




NOES


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Grieve, Percy
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Grimond Rt. Hn. J.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Astor, John
Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Peel, John


Balniel, Lord
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Percival, Ian


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Peyton, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Hastings, Stephen
Pink, R. Bonner


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, J. M. L.


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hordern, Peter
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
Hunt, John
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Burden, F. A.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Campbell, Gordon (Moray &amp; Nairn)
Kershaw, Anthony
Royle, Anthony


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Kitson, Timothy
Russell, Sir Ronald


Clark, Henry
Knight, Mrs. Jill
St. John-Stevas, Norman


Clegg, Walter
Lambton, Antony
Scott, Nicholas


Costain, A. P.
Lane, David
Scott-Hopkins, James


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sharples, Richard


Crowder, F. P.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Longden, Gilbert
Speed, Keith


Dalkeith, Earl of
Lubbock, Eric
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Stodart, Anthony


Dean, Paul
MacArthur, Ian
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Mackenzie, Alasdair (Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Temple, John M.


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Doughty, Charles
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Drayson, G. B.
Maginnis, John E.
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Maude, Angus
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Eden, Sir John
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mawby, Ray
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek


Elliott, R.W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wall, Patrick


Emery, Peter
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Ward, Dame Irene


Errington, Sir Eric
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Weatherill, Bernard


Eyre, Reginald
Monro, Hector
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Farr, John
Montgomery, Fergus
Wiggin, A. W.


Fisher, Nigel
More, Jasper
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Fortescue, Tim
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Foster, Sir John
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Woodnutt, Mark


Fry, Peter

Worsley, Marcus


Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Wylie, N. R.


Glover, Sir Douglas
Neave, Alrey



Goodhart, Philip
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley
Mr. Michael Shaw and


Gower, Raymond
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Mr. Michael Jopling.


Grant, Anthony

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the grave threat to the interests of the northern development area arising from the Tory shadow cabinet's proposals at its Selsdon Park meet-

ing; and congratulates the Government for pursuing policies aimed at assisting the Northern development area to recover from the effects of the changing pattern of industry, and the years of neglect under the previous Tory governments.

PORT OF TYNE BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It will help the Chair to secure a balanced debate if hon. Members who wish to speak will let me know whether they wish to speak for or against the Bill. At the moment, I know that there are four hon. Members who wish to speak—two for and two against.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Conlon: I commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House. The responsibility for providing the ferry between North Shields and South Shields is a statutory responsibility falling upon the Port of Tyne Authority arising from a local Act of 1861. I do not think it unreasonable for the authority to expect that in the changed conditions of 1970, as compared with 1861, there should be a reappraisal of the circumstances in which it is obliged to run this ferry. Prior to the opening of the Tyne Tunnel between Jarrow and Howdon, passenger traffic had declined steadily from more than 8¼ million in 1919 to just over 2 million in 1966. As compared with this, the vehicular traffic was increasing and in 1966 had reached the level of 404,000, which included 380,000 motor vehicles.
The Tyne Tunnel was opened in October, 1967. It caused an immediate and dramatic reduction in the traffic using the ferry and there was a consequential diminution of income. In 1966 there was a small surplus on the operation of the ferry but the accumulated deficit on the ferry account, which by statute is kept separate from the port authority's general account, was about £172,500 at the end of 1966. The authority's predecessors, the Tyne Improvement Commissioners, had already taken action to curtail expenditure subsequent to the Tyne Tunnel being opened, first by ceasing to provide a Sunday service, second by reducing the duration and frequency of the weekly service and third by disposing of two ferry boats.
It also sought sanction of the Ministry of Transport to increase the passenger

toll from 6d. to 1s. By virtue of the Tyne Tunnel Act the authority is entitled to claim compensation from the county councils of Northumberland and County Durham in respect of any reduction in revenue from the ferry as a result of the opening of the tunnel. Notwithstanding the payment of this compensation the accumulated deficit had risen to a little more than £184,000 at the end of 1968. The increase in passenger toll for which the authority applied in February, 1968, was opposed by both the Tynemouth and the South Shields Corporations and they required that a public inquiry be held, but subsequently the application was approved by the Minister of Transport and it was brought into operation on 11th August, 1969.
Despite the increased toll it is expected that there will be a deficit on the operation for 1969 of about £40,000 which will only partially be met by any compensation which might be obtained from the county councils. Therefore, there will be an increase in the accumulated deficit. The authority is not eligible for any grants towards the cost of providing improved ferry facilities or towards its annual running costs. Any deficit must therefore be met out of the general revenue from the trade of the port.
The present level of trade on the Tyne and the forecast of future prospects are causing some concern. The authority feels it is wrong that the trade of the port should have to bear the heavy burden of operating a ferry which is mainly a service to the local populations of Tynemouth and South Shields. On several occasions the two harbour authorities have been offered the undertaking free, and without transfer of the accumulated deficit, but they have declined to accept it. Furthermore, the two authorities have been invited on a number of occasions to make contributions towards the cost of running the ferry and on each occasion they declined to make such a contribution. In fairness to them I ought to say that there is some doubt whether the authorities would have the power to make such a contribution.
In appraising the undertaking, which was transferred to it in August, 1968, the Port of Tyne Authority decided that it could no longer subsidise the ferry service out of the general revenues of the port. It considered that a bus service


or bus services through the Tyne Tunnel would provide an alternative which would be more flexible in meeting the requirements of the cross-river traffic particularly at peak hours of the day. It also considered that with the establishment of the Tyneside Passenger Transport Executive, whose duty it is under the Transport Act, 1968, to provide a properly integrated and efficient system of passenger transport in the area, the executive is the body which should consider whether the ferry service is necessary between North Shields and South Shields and, if it is, it is for the Executive to provide it.
The power which the authority seeks to abandon by the Bill in abandoning the ferry may be exercised only if it has offered the ferry to the passenger transport executive and if that body declines the offer. Having regard to the duties imposed upon the executive by Parliament, it seems to me that it can decline the ferry only if it decides that it is unnecessary or is totally uneconomic. In either case, it seems unfair to expect the port authority to continue running the ferry.
For several reasons, the executive should be better able to run the ferry than the port authority. It may receive grants under the Transport Act, 1968. Also, it may continue to run unremunerative passenger services if it considers that there is a need, and it may precept on local authorities within its area to meet deficits. The port authority can do none of those things. In addition, the executive, which has a duty placed upon it by Parliament to integrate passenger transport services in the Tyneside area, is best able to judge whether a ferry service is needed.
The authority's case is based on its own experience of the numbers travelling and the cost. As a further step towards ascertaining whether a service is necessary, the passenger transport authority, at the suggestion of the port authority, has recently taken an origin and destination survey of passengers on the ferry, and a study of the most suitable type of boat is being sponsored. The authority is bearing one half of the cost of the survey and study, the other half being shared by the executive and the two harbour boroughs. The result of the survey and study should help the passenger transport executive to decide whether

the ferry is a service which ought to be continued. The Bill does nothing to impede this consideration. Indeed, it assists by providing the means by which the transfer to the passenger transport executive can be effected, and it allows the executive plenty of time to reach a decision.
I recognise that representations will be made on behalf of the two harbour boroughs. It must be recognised also that the ferry is being run almost exclusively for the benefit of these boroughs. I am given to understand that the Port of Tyne Authority will be prepared, when the Bill is before the Select Committee, to meet as far as it reasonably can legitimate objections to the Bill.
For all those reasons, I ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading.

7.24 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I listened with interest to the account given by the hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan), but I oppose the Bill on Second Reading for several reasons. A complicated Bill of this kind, which can have enormous repercussions on the life of the river, should be presented to Parliament before it goes to a Select Committee, so that the speeches made both for and against are recorded in HANSARD for all to see. Therefore, I blocked the Bill, and we are having the Second Reading debate today.
My object, and, I imagine, the object of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop), is to have on the River Tyne a properly planned transport service which will cover all sections of the community. I listened earlier to what was said in the debate on unemployment in the North-East, as I listened with interest to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead, East a few minutes ago, but I did not hear any reference to the fact that, since its establishment under statutory authority, the ferry—or the ferries, as they used to be—has to a large extent carried, and still carries, shipyard workers from the north bank of the Tyne to the south bank and from the south bank to the north. This has always been a tradition.
In my constituency, there is one of the greatest and most reputable ship repairing yards in the world, Smith's


Docks. I mention that fact to emphasise that this is not an ordinary passenger ferry for Members of Parliament and others to use—although, of course, lots of people use the ferry who are not concerned in the ship-repairing yard—but it was established, in the main, to ensure that shipyard workers were able to cross from the north bank to the south and from the south bank to the north. This remains an extremely important function of the ferry.
We have just had a debate on unemployment in the North-East. The House may be interested to know that the major amount of unemployment in the shipbuilding area of the Tyne is in ship repairing. I feel, therefore, that we have a perfect right to argue for the maintenance of all that is necessary for our ship-repairing establishments and the employment which they give.
Although he put the matter very well, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead, East failed to point out that in the area from Newcastle up to the tunnel there are adequate facilities for crossing the river. Newcastle and Gateshead have been extremely lucky lately in having a beautiful new bridge built at Scotswood. We have the great Tyne Tunnel, too. My constituents, and, I imagine, people in the County Borough of South Shields as well, wanted the entrances and exists of the tunnel placed a little nearer the mouth of the river to ensure that our shipyard workers could readily carry on their traditional work in the shipyards.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We cannot replace or reposition the tunnel by this Bill.

Dame Irene Ward: I realise that we cannot reposition the tunnel, Mr. Speaker, but, apart from the shipyard workers and the ordinary people who go shopping from one side of the river to the other who will be incommoded by closure of the ferry, everyone else has a convenient vehicular crossing through the tunnel. It is only our part of the Tyne which is left in isolation. This is the problem.
We all recognise that the Tyne is in decline. I listened with interest and appreciation to the Adjournment debate

initiated by the hon. Members for South Shields and for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough) on the difficulties of the Tyne. They are very real difficulties, and I do not want them to be increased.
We know that we do not need a ferry boat for the purpose of carrying vehicles; these use the tunnel. I also agree that reasonable costs should be charged to people using the ferry. But the way in which the Port of Tyne has decided, without adequate safeguards, to take from this important part of the River Tyne its method of transport is most unfortunate. So upset were the directors of the Port of Tyne that they rushed up to Clydeside to try to get some Clydeside Members to deal with me! That is the first time in recent history that the Geordies have appealed to the Scots to rescue them, and I found it very amusing.
But what must be established, if the Bill is passed, is that those for whom the hon. Member and I have responsibility will be adequately protected so that they may carry on their legitimate work. The Bill does nothing to give us confidence that that protection will be provided.
I must, I am afraid, read from the Petition. Hon. Members may find it a little boring, but it is inevitable. In paragraph 9 and subsequently, the Petitioners—the County Borough of Tynemouth and the County Borough of South Shields—state:
Your Petitioners accept that it might be reasonable for the authority to be empowered to transfer the ferry undertaking to the Executive, but wish to emphasise that it would only be reasonable if the continuance of the ferry could be assured. Your Petitioners believe that the continuance of the ferry service is essential for the economic and social wellbeing of their two communities, and that it can be made financially self-supporting if properly managed.
I emphasise the words "properly managed". The Petition continues:
Their views have been supported by a petition deposited with the Prime Minister in December, 1969, containing approximately 10,000 signatures.
When I had lunch the other day with the Chairman of the Port of Tyne Authority, I asked him whether he had received any representations at Ministerial level, because when the hon. Member and I presented the Petition to Downing Street the Prime Minister


arranged for it to be considered by the Minister responsible for local government and regional development. I think that is the title, although I find it very difficult to remember who are all the Ministers and what are their jobs. But I asked the chairman whether any representations had been made by the Minister, who had handed on the Petition and had reported all we had said to the Minister of Transport, and I was horrified to be told by the chairman that he had received no representations. It may be that in this era of secret documents he felt that he could not disclose the fact that he had had conversations with a Minister, but in fact he told me that he had had no such conversations.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister had discussions with the various people concerned when he visited Tyneside on 8th and 9th January.

Dame Irene Ward: That is exactly what I thought, but when I lunched with the chairman on 30th January and asked him whether he had received any representations from the hon. Member's Department, he said, "No". I do not know why he said that.
The Petition continues:
Your Petitioners have considered the material available on which to form a judgment on this matter. They gave particular consideration to the fact that the ferry service is at present carried on by a single coal-fired vessel suitable for the carriage of vehicles as well as passengers. There appears to be a need to replace this vessel by a more modern vessel suitable for the carriage of passengers alone. It further appears that it should be possible to obtain a grant from the Minister of Transport towards the capital cost of the new vessel.
What made me very angry was that the Port of Tyne Authority, knowing the interest which we all take in the future development of Tyneside and in maintaining a high level of employment, particularly in view of the present difficulties, did not introduce the Bill at some conference or another. I find it extraordinary that though they sent me a copy of the Bill, they did not provide a proper presentation of the whole situation at a conference. It is parliament which takes the decision in the end not the Port of Tyne Authority or other local authori-

ties. The statutory obligation is governed by a decision of Parliament, and it was extremely unwise of the Chairman of the Port of Tyne Authority not to get in touch with Members of Parliament, who have a close interest in the matter, particularly in view of the fact that unemployment in the ship-repairing yards is very acute and that a well-designed and busy ship-repairing yard can make a contribution to the economic stability of the country.
The Petition continues:
Your Petitioners understand that the Executive are unable to reach any decision on whether they should, in the event of a transfer of the undertaking, be prepared to provide such a new vessel. There is no satisfactory information available on which to make such a decision. Your Petitioners have agreed with the Authority and the Executive that an origin and destination survey should be made in order to ascertain how many people would be affected by the termination of the ferry service, and to what extent those people would be affected in terms of additional cost and additional time and inconvenience of travel.
Even so, there is no reference to the ship-reair workers. The Petition adds:
It has also been agreed to obtain a report on the most suitable type of ferry-boat to meet the need that is established. The cost of these investigations is to be shared. Your Petitioners
—I absolutely agree—
submit that these matters should have been investigated before the Bill was promoted. Until all the relevant factors have been taken into account in assessing and forecasting the needs of users of the ferry and of the inhabitants on each side of the River, it is impossible to make any decision upon whether the Authority should be relieved of the obligation to maintain the ferry which they undertook in 1861. It is also impossible to make any estimate of the cost of providing an effective and economical means of crossing the River at any point between its mouth and the Tyne Tunnel. It follows that there is no material upon which to make a judgment as to whether the Authority or the Executive or your Petitioners or any other person should bear or share in the cost of continuing or replacing the ferry service. The Bill is defective in that it enables the Authority and the Executive to discontinue the ferry without providing any safeguard to ensure that these matters have been properly considered and decided in a manner that is just and can be shown to be just.
That is the case which I am making. In order to establish the fact that the Bill provides no safeguard to the ferry, I am asking that the ferry should not be handed over. We probably should agree that it would be a good idea to hand it


over to the passenger transport authority, provided the authority had a statutory obligation to carry on the ferry.
Clause 10 of the Port of Tyne Bill states:
If the Authority have submitted to the Executive proposals (and have not withdrawn them) offering to transfer the undertaking in accordance with section 4 (Power to transfer ferry undertaking to the Executive) of this Act, and agreement between the Authority and the Executive has not been reached, whether in the terms of such proposals or otherwise, the Authority may at any time after the expiry of twelve months from the date of such submisison, or, in the event of the Executive serving upon the Authority written notice that they decline to entertain any such proposals, at any time after such service, by resolution abandon and discontinue the ferry service.
There are occasions when, if a ship comes in for a quick repair, the ferry is called out and the men involved on the job are ferried to the yard. I do not think it is right or in the interests of the Tyne authority, or of our county boroughs, or of the workers, that there should be a Bill which does not give adequate and proper safeguards.
I should not have felt so steamed up about this if the Port of Tyne Authority had discussed the matter. After all, this is a matter for discussion. I do not accept that I should be rolled over by the Port of Tyne Authority. Neither should my constituents or the shipyard workers, or the passengers. South Shields, North Shields and Tynemouth have always had a very close association, and merely to produce this Bill without any proper discussion, without giving us the background of everything that is involved, is intolerable.
I went to lunch with the Chairman of the Port of Tyne Authority and it suddenly occurred to me that he imagined that he would be able to win me over. But I am not one of those who are won over if I really decide to take a matter in hand. I asked the chairman if he would set out for me exactly what the situation was, and this is what he wrote in reply:
The position still remains that if the Authority were assured that there would be no loss on providing and operating a ferry service with a new passenger only ferry boat at any time over its life they would provide one. This is not to be taken as meaning that the Authority consider a ferry service is neces-

sary. In their opinion a properly planned bus service would provide a more flexible and better transport service.
I understand that there is a very real threat to our coastal railways. I do not know how we shall be able to move thousands of workers in our industrial establishments on Tyneside, not to mention our shipyard workers, by means of a bus service through a tunnel with only two lanes. I believe I am right in saying that the hon. Member for South Shields is no more satisfied than I am about the possible provision of a bus service.
During our discussions Mr. Burrell, the Chairman of the Port of Tyne Authority, said that the old Tyne improvement undertaking had once provided Tynemouth—I do not know whether it was provided for South Shields as well—with a free ferry on which nobody had to pay a fare. That really horrified me, because I believe that everybody should pay his way. In fact, Mr. Burrell did not prove to be entirely accurate. I do not accept everything that people say to me, without an investigation, and I found that that statement was not quite true. But that is what he said. I presume that he said it in order to give the impression that our fuss about the ferry was ridiculous.
Mr. Burrell also said in his letter:
I must also emphasise that it is doubtful whether the two Harbour boroughs have power to contribute to the cost of the service and in the past they have declined to do so.
One really would have thought that the old Tyne improvement commission and the present Port of Tyne Authority would have taken legal advice. To say in February, 1970, that they do not know whether it is statutorily possible for the local authorities to make a contribution seems to me to indicate that the Tyne improvement commission and the Port of Tyne Authority must be extraordinarily badly run. One would have thought that if it were proposed to discuss whether it would be possible to pay a contribution, the port authority would have ascertained the actual liabilities of the two local authorities.
I feel absolutely shaken by this whole procedure, and I thought it only right and this should be put on the record and not left to a Select Committee where everything is shrouded in mystery, where the Press is not present and where nobody, except those concerned, is interested in


what goes on. This is a matter for Parliament, and in due course we shall have to give our sanction to whatever final arrangements are made.
I have one more thing to say to those hon. Members who live on Tyneside and who may feel inclined to vote for this Bill. After all, their constituents are not worried about getting to work. But to have omitted to get this matter basically and legally thought out so that a proper scheme could be presented is the most extraordinary thing in the world. Today I asked the Prime Minister—I have not yet had an answer—if he would give a direction to the British Steel Corporation to allow us to continue to ship ore from the Tyne. If we do not have that work, we shall be in an even worse position than we are today.
I make no apology for stating in this House the case for proper consideration. If we have that proper consideration I think that my two local authorities, assuming that they were presented with all the facts, would be prepared to discuss what should be done. But if we are to lose the ore shipments as well, I shudder to think what will happen to our great river. I am absolutely scandalised that while all this is going on, the Port of Tyne Authority has merely presented a half-baked and improperly thought out Bill, with nobody knowing where he is.
Of course, I should like this Bill to be thrown out tonight, but it may not be. I never place any reliance on anything that may happen in Parliament. One never knows whether one will win or lose a battle. But I hope that my speech tonight will be studied by learned counsel. Indeed, I hope that I shall be called as a witness so that my views on this situation will be placed on record in the Select Committee.
I have the greatest pleasure in opposing the Bill.

7.50 p.m.

Mr. David Watkins: I have listened with great interest to the arguments adduced by the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). Fascinated as I am by the prospect of her being, to use her own words, "rolled over" by the Port of Tyne Authority, I support the Bill. I have not been invited to lunch by anyone—

Mr. Geoffrey Rhodes: Or rolled over.

Mr. Watkins: —to obtain my support for the Bill. I am sorry if the hon. Lady is disappointed by my support for the Bill. I shall try to bear her disappointment with fortitude.
The Bill seeks to remedy the situation whereby the Port of Tyne Authority is saddled with the legal responsibility to operate the Market Place ferry, whether or not it is a viable, economic proposition. My hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan), in opening the debate, drew attention to the growing financial burden the Port of Tyne Authority has to bear in operating the ferry, especially since the opening of the Tyne Tunnel in October, 1967. By 31st December, 1968, there was already an accumulated deficit of over £184,000 on the operation of the ferry, and the 1969 deficit is estimated to be likely to be about £40,000. This is the measure of the financial burden the authority has to bear. It is to seek to relieve itself of that burden that it is promoting the Bill.
The deficit on the operation of the ferry must be met, as the law stands, from the revenue of the port. The hon. Lady touched on a very important aspect of the whole issue of the port revenue. We are not considering this call on the revenue in a static or expanding situation but in a declining situation. The revenue of the Port of Tyne has been declining for a number of years, and it will decline further.
One of the major items handled by the port is the iron ore which comes in through Tyne Dock and is conveyed to the steel works in my constituency at Consett. Within the past few weeks the British Steel Corporation has started to build a new iron ore port at Teesside, and it is the intention that when it comes into operation in 1972 Consett's iron ore will cease to come from the Tyne and will be imported via the Tees.
This is extremely important, because, whilst it means that the British Steel Corporation at Consett will—I am reliably informed—save £1 million a year in iron ore transportation costs, the Port of Tyne will lose £650,000 a year in its revenues. In 1969 the total gross income of the Port of Tyne Authority


was a little over £2,808,000, of which a little over £647,000 was revenue from the handling of iron ore. The point is that this source of income will cease some time after 1972 with the coming into operation of the Teesside iron ore port.
It does not seem to me to be right that the Port of Tyne Authority should be saddled with this statutory responsibility and loss. In any case, it should not be saddled with it in view of the developments in its own revenue which will take place consequent upon the development in the iron ore trade. For this reason alone, the Bill deserves a Second Reading tonight.
I want to turn to another aspect of the matter to indicate why I support the Second Reading, and especially why the Bill should be enabled to go to Select Committee for the arguments for and against to be examined in great detail. The House is indebted to the hon. Lady for having allowed a debate to take place tonight, because there are clearly deeply divided opinions on the Bill in the House. There is an unanswerable case for the Bill to receive a Second Reading and to go to Select Committee so that the kind of points she mentioned, and which I shall now talk about, can be examined in detail.
The Tyne Tunnel has been the subject of a vast amount of legislation. There is a whole series of Acts of Parliament concerning its building and operation. Under Section 54 of the Tyne Tunnel Act, 1960 the Durham and Northumberland County Councils are required to pay compensation to the Port of Tyne authority for loss of revenue on the operation of the ferry arising from the existence of the tunnel. One of the criteria in calculating the amount which must be paid is that the Port of Tyne Authority shall operate an efficient ferry service. There is likely to be a difference of opinion on how the word "efficient" would be defined.
By 31st March, 1969, the last date for which figures are available, the two county councils had paid £27,000 in subsidy towards the ferry's operation. The amount which must be paid is calculated by a complicated formula, and it is difficult to forecast what amounts might have to be paid in the future. It is indefensible that the ratepayers of the counties of

Durham and Northumberland, the two authorities responsible for the building of the Tyne Tunnel, should be saddled with the burden in perpetuity.
If the ferry is transferred to the Tyneside Passenger Transport Executive, as proposed in Clause 4, the right to compensation is also transferred, so it would still have to be paid. It seems to me quite wrong that the transport executive, which has powers to precept upon all local authorities in the area which its operations cover, and has other powerful means of raising revenue, should continue in perpetuity to receive this subsidy from the two counties.
Both Durham and Northumberland County Councils have petitioned the House against that aspect of the Bill. I feel very strongly that their case needs detailed examination, which is a further reason why the Bill should be given a Second Reading so that it can go to Select Committee and all the arguments adduced by the two county councils, as well as all the other numerous points to be argued on the Bill and in relation to the operation of the ferry, can be examined in detail.

Dame Irene Ward: Will the hon. Gentleman add to the information which he has given about the Northumberland and Durham County Councils? Were all the local authorities made aware of the plans for the building of the tunnel, or just the county councils?

Mr. Watkins: I take the hon. Lady's point. Without being able to give a precise answer on whether every local authority on and around Tyneside was made aware, certainly these two local authorities were. This is a further good reason why the House should give the Bill a Second Reading. It would allow a detailed examination of their arguments about the Bill in Select Committee and give an opportunity for any other local authority to bring forward points of argument.
As I was saying, there are two major reasons why the House should give the Bill a Second Reading. Because of the loss being sustained on the operation of the ferry, the port authority should have a right to offer the ferry to the Tyneside Passenger Transport Executive, as proposed in Clause 4, and, if the transport


executive does not want it, the port authority should have the right to close the ferry, as proposed in Clause 10.
I mention briefly the position of the staff employed on the ferry. Clauses 5 and 11 set out specific proposals for the protection of the staff, whichever way it goes. If the ferry is handed over to the transport executive, Clause 5 protects the position of the staff. If the transport authority does not take the ferry and the Port of Tyne Authority subsequently decides to close it, Clause 11 protects the position of the staff.
My second major reason for giving the Bill a Second Reading is the position of the two county councils, and possibly other local authorities, which have to pay compensation. This arrangement needs revision, and a detailed examination of the case for a revision should be undertaken in the Select Committee.
To sum up, there is no case for the House to reject the Bill at this stage. Public use of the ferry has declined rapidly, particularly since the opening of the Tyne tunnel. I know that pedestrian passengers use the ferry, but use of the ferry has declined rapidly, and there is a strong case for the Bill. The two county councils to which I have referred also have strong cases for examination. For all these reasons I support the Second Reading, and I hope the House will do likewise.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop: I am a little surprised at the conclusion to which my hon. Friend the Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) has come after his extremely good exposition of some of the problems affecting the proposal. I thought his speech reinforced the views of the hon. Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) and myself, that the proper course would be for the Bill to be withdrawn to allow several matters to be cleared up, so that we could then go forward with an agreed Measure, which is a much more sensible and reasonable proposition.
I have no complaint about the way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) introduced the Bill; he did so in a reasonable spirit. He gave a slightly mistaken idea, although I do not think this was his fault, when

he suggested that an undertaking that had been reached as far back as 1861 obviously needed revision by 1970—

Mr. Conlan: My only point was that the circumstances in recent years have changed so much that there is need for a review. For instance, there is the Tyne Tunnel and the passenger transport executive.

Mr. Blenkinsop: I am not in any way disagreeing with my hon. Friend. I am only making the point that the undertaking that was reached in 1861 has of course been changed on several occasions. There were originally three ferries, not one. It gives a slightly wrong impression about the two authorities at the mouth of the river, Tynemouth and South Shields, if it is suggested that they opposed every change in the provisions of the original Measure which saddled the old Tyne Improvement Commission with responsibility for three ferries.
In recent years there have been two major Private Bills, one of which got rid of the Tyne Improvement Commission's responsibility for what was the Whitehill Point ferry, which was temporarily restored after the war and then went out of use again, and Tynemouth and South Shields made no objection to this. Not long after that, in 1954, the second ferry, known as the direct ferry, was also discontinued. A special Bill was brought in by the Tyne Improvement Commissioners and, although the two local authorities were doubtful and worried about the discontinuance of the second ferry, they nevertheless, after much discussion with the Tyne Improvement Commissioners, agreed, on condition that the Tyne Improvement Commissioners would give a more satisfactory assurance about the maintenance of the landing stages for emergency purposes.
The 1954 Private Bill was passed, so we lost the second ferry, and before long, after further discussions, those emergency landing stages were disposed of, on the understanding that the sole remaining ferry would be equipped with radar to enable it to operate in bad conditions.
I recite this history to make it quite clear that the Tynemouth and South Shields local authorities have not stood against eveery change in the provisions


made at the mouth of the river. Far from it; they have been co-operative in the reduction of the responsibilities borne by the Tyne Improvement Commissioners.
Naturally enough, the last ferry is a very different matter. Clear undertakings were given that this connection would be maintained. It would be completely unsatisfactory for the people on either side of the mouth of the river—and not only those people—if this ferry were to be discontinued. The provision is now far less adequate than it was; the service has been run down, it is less frequent, the charge has been increased and the Sunday service has been discontinued. Although there is now to be an inquiry into where people using the ferry go, it will not be as useful as would have been such an inquiry some time ago. The Tyne Improvement Commissioners are open to blame for not having undertaken an inquiry a considerable time ago when the whole situation even then was clear.
I emphasise that this is a service which is regarded on both sides of the river as important to our communities of North Shields and South Shields. I have been in touch with the firms immediately concerned. We know that there are at least 400 men working regularly at Smiths Docks in the constituency of the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth and living on the south side of the river in or about South Shields. There are men working in other firms near the landing stage and there are others who work in the repair and building yards on the south side and live on the north side.
The use of the ferry made by workers in these yards is considerable, and they express their views bluntly, directly and unanimously. The South Shields Labour and Trades Council has made clear its unanimous demand for the maintenance of the service, and so have the individual unions, particularly the boilermakers and associated unions, who represent a large proportion of those working in the building yards along the river. The closing of the ferry service is not a small matter for the people living and working in the area.
Not only those who work in premises close to the landing stage are affected. There are many others who find it convenient to use the ferry. A number of

nurses live on the north side and yet work in hospitals in South Shields and find the ferry the quickest method of getting to and from their homes. There are teachers and many others who make full use of the ferry.
Although there has been a sharp diminution in the number using the ferry since the opening of the tunnel, there is still considerable use of the ferry, as is proved by the figures provided by the new Tyne Port Authority. Thousands of people a year still use the ferry. Although it is less reliable than it was, on average 1,500 or more people use the ferry every working day.
I entirely agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth that we do not want to perpetuate the use of the existing boat, which is thoroughly out of date. There is no reason why vehicular traffic now using the ferry should not use the tunnel. The opening of the tunnel has brought about the major drop in ferry traffic. What we want and what we are united about is a replacement which will do the job more efficiently than the present vessel. There is only one vessel at the moment and if it needs repair, for instance, the whole operation is closed down in the meantime. That naturally pushes more people away from using the ferry. We want an up-to-date vessel which can do the job efficiently for foot passengers and which can be made to pay.
I agree that there is a strong case for the new passenger transport executive and authority taking over responsibility, but I insist that it must take over responsibility for the original undertaking. We must ensure that before we reach any further agreement. I commit no one else when I say that I think it perfectly reasonable that if the passenger transport executive takes over general responsibility, Tynemouth and South Shields should agree to consider in what way they could contribute towards the running costs, if that proves to be legally practicable. We ought to find out whether they would be allowed to make such a contribution. Morally and in other ways, it is right for them to discuss what joint contribution they should make, but it is not a matter solely for those authorities, and to some extent responsibility rests on the other authorities concerned with the Tyne area.
Many families, particularly in the summer, use the ferry to cross from Tynemouth to South Shields. We like them to come and to use the market in the town. The hon. Lady will probably agree with me that there is no better sight than coming across the river and seeing the ships in the dock and in the river. It is exciting both by day and by night. It is a sight of which most people living on Tyneside are proud and which they like to take their families and visitors to see. It would be a sad thing if their opportunity to do so were lost.
We are grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for his efforts to help. He has tried to get the authorities together to discuss the matter. In a letter to me, he made it clear that the Government might contribute 50 per cent. of the cost of a new vessel, on the understanding that a new agreement can be reached. That is very reasonable, and I hope that it is an offer which can be accepted. We can then get on with the job. But as part of the process of getting on with the job the Bill should be withdrawn so that we may have the necessary discussions and reach an agreement on the kind of lines I have suggested. That seems to be sensible.

Mr. Rhodes: I am closely following the line of argument advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) and the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward). This is one of those rare occasions when one comes to the House with a completely open, but not, I hope, blank mind. I hope that this is not a digression or irrelevant. I understand the hon. Members to be arguing for integrated responsibility for the ferry by all the Tyneside authorities on the ground that the movement of population across the river remains an important aspect of the life of Tyneside. I wonder how my hon. Friend reconciles that approach to transport with the basically parochial approach of his local authority and the hon. Lady's local authority when integrated local government on Tyneside was mooted two or three years ago.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Irrelevant or not, that is not particularly helpful in this discussion. It does not affect the issue. If proposals for local government re-

organisation go through, there will he one unitary authority for Tyneside. Presumably, it will take over the responsibility of the passenger transport executive. That may make matters somewhat easier; I do not know.
All I am saying is that in view of all these uncertainties, some of which it should be possible to clear up within a relatively short time—a statistical inquiry into the number of passengers using the ferry was held only last week but I have not been able to get the figures as they are not available—we should hold the Bill back. We should wait until we have that information so that we know what we are talking about. Equally, with the co-operation of all the parties concerned, an inquiry is being undertaken into what is the best new vessel which might be acquired for the purpose of running the new ferry if it is to operate. Surely we should wait until we know that. This seems to me to be the more sensible way of working. Let us get the facts straight, and then we can consider the Bill in a proper way. It may be that by then we can get agreement amongst the parties concerned, as I hope it should prove possible to do.
People in my constituency—this is not a party political matter; they are united about this—are naturally disturbed about the Bill. These are people who live by the sea, and on the sea. A high proportion of my constituents are seamen, seagoing engineers, and others. A large proportion work in the shipyards and in the repair yards. To them the river and the water ought to be, not a barrier, but a natural link, and so it has always been. To offer the threat, or even to make the suggestion, that the river should become a barrier for the first time is something which is emotionally as well as rationally not at all acceptable to the people on the other side of the river.
I hope very much that my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East, who put these proposals forward in a pleasant, amiable, and not at all argumentative way, will agree that on balance it would be better if the Bill were withdrawn, in the hope and expectation that we can consider the objections raised by the Counties of Northumberland and Durham, and also the serious points which I have made tonight about the need for further information.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: This is an unusually difficult Bill, and I am sure that no one will complain that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) has caused the Bill to be debated in the House. I am sure that the House will appreciate guidance upon this Measure from the Minister.
As the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said, it is more than a century since the Tyne Improvement Commissioners started to run three ferries across the River Tyne. They closed two of them in the early 'fifties, but continued to run the Market Place ferry, and that is the ferry about which we are talking tonight.
In 1967 the Tyne Tunnel was opened. This drew custom away from the ferry, and in that year the ferry was transferred from the commissioners to the Port of Tyne Authority. The Bill seeks to transfer the ferry once again, this time to the passenger transport executive, the argument for the transfer being that the passenger transport executives were set up to do this sort of job, and that this passenger transport executive can obtain grants, if necessary, in aid of the efficient running of this ferry.
But the passenger transport executive is not prepared, as I understand it, from from what we have been told about the agreement between the Port of Tyne Authority and the executive, to take over the deficit of £184,000 plus, we have heard tonight, another £40,000 for the 1969 accumulated deficit, and that will remain to be paid by the authority. I understand that the authority cannot expect to recoup any of the £184,000 from the Durham and Northumberland County Councils because they have already paid their share of compensation under their undertaking.
The hon. Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) mentioned this undertaking given by the county councils to compensate the commissioners, as it was then, now the authority, for loss sustained as a result of the opening of the tunnel. For the life of me I do not know how anyone calculates loss sustained by the opening of the tunnel, compared with any other loss, but apparently figures have been agreed between the authorities, and compensation has been paid for the past losses. At any rate, it is the ratepayers

who have had to foot the bill for that loss to no small extent.
That undertaking applies to the future as well. If the ferry is transferred to the executive, I understand that the present intention is that the executive shall be entitled to call on the county councils to pay compensation for loss due to the activities of the tunnel. So the executive will have two claims against the ratepayer. First, it will claim for a contribution towards future losses under the undertaking given as long ago as 1861. Second, it will be able to precept on the rates for the cost of running the ferry, and its other undertakings.
But it will have a third benefit as well. It will be able to obtain grants which are not available to the Port of Tyne Authority. The authority has been able to obtain no grant in aid of running the ferry, except the contribution from the county councils, and so the executive is in a particularly favourable position, being able to call on the undertaking, being able to precept for rates, and being able to get a grant. This may be a good argument for the transfer to the executive. Indeed in saying that a grant would be available for the replacement of the ferry, the hon. Member for South Shields pointed to some considerable advantages to the neighbourhood, the two boroughs, and the counties, in the executive taking over and having a call on that grant. But if it is to get that grant, I hope that as the Bill proceeds consideration will be given to relieving the county councils of the undertakings which they have given. It seems to me unnecessary to hold them to those undertakings now. It can all be done in the proper way by a precept on the rates, if necessary, and capital can be obtained by the proper grant.
I should not argue that the ferry should continue to run if it is not a viable commercial undertaking. It has lost money in the past. Was that due to bady management? The House cannot tell. We do not have the information to enable us to say "Yea" or "Nay" this evening. What will be the demand in future? Again, the House does not know. Is this a local government service which should be subsidised by the rates? If so, to what figure should it be subsidised? Should the ferry be treated,


financially, as one with the tunnel and perhaps be subsidised out of tunnel tolls? These are all questions which come to mind in debating the Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth says that the answers should have been discovered before the Bill was presented. The hon. Member for South Shields said that the Bill should be withdrawn because we had not got this information. I express only a personal opinion, but, now that the Bill is with us, I think that it would be a pity to put the whole scheme back to square one. This information can and should be discovered in the course of the Bill's Committee stage. If the Bill goes to Committee, one can see what information is produced. When it comes back to this House on Report, we can consider what information has been produced in Committee, and if the House sees fit, it can throw out the Bill at that stage because there is insufficient information. But it would be a pity to put it back to square one at the moment.
However, there is one point of principle which emerges from the Bill. It is whether a passenger transport executive should use its considerable bargaining powers to take over an undertaking and refuse to take over its liabilities. That seems to be unfair, and it should be considered. The hon. Member for Consett (Mr. David Watkins) said that the port income is declining and that we are not even discussing a static, far less an expanding, income in the port. Therefore, £184,000 plus another £40,000 will be a considerable blow to the finances of the port. That £184,000 will have to come out of the general revenue—the port dues. In short, it will be paid by the shippers, the shipping companies, the ship repairers, and so on. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said that the ferry was used for transporting shipyard workers. It may be to that extent that the port should accept the past deficit or the deficit which has been built up and meet it out of general revenues. I am in doubt about that, because I think that it would be fairer for the passenger transport executive to take over the liabilities as well as the assets.
Whatever may be thought about passenger transport executives in general, I think that no one would seriously argue,

there being a passenger transport executive here, that it is the wrong body to take over the ferry. I think that it is the right body. I only hope that leaving the deficit in the hands of the port is not regarded as a precedent. Perhaps I should have started by declaring a constituency interest here. Anyone who listens to the "top ten" or even to ordinary pop music will know that there is a Mersey ferry. I am concerned that this Bill may be a precedent for the passenger transport executive taking over the Mersey ferry and leaving the port with a deficit.
If the Bill goes to Committee, I hope that consideration will be given, first, to relieving the county councils of their undertaking for the future to contribute towards losses and, secondly, to the question of the accumulated deficit remaining to be paid by the Port of Tyne Authority.

8.34 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Albert Murray): We have almost been able to feel the Tyne breezes this evening, with hon. Members declaring their interests in this subject.
The House will have heard with interest the promoters' reasons for presenting the Bill. In brief they amount to this, that the ferry service is really no part of the promoters' port undertaking proper; that it is losing money and likely to continue doing so; that the promoters have enough financial difficulties with their port undertaking; and that, in all these circumstances, they feel that they ought to be relieved of their present obligations to go on running the ferry and meeting its losses indefinitely. They hope to be able, if given the powers that they are now seeking, to hand over the ferry by agreement to the Tyneside Passenger Transport Executive; but they also ask for a reserve power to abandon the ferry should it prove impossible to reach agreement with the executive.
It is entirely a matter for the Executive to decide whether or not to take over the ferry if the Bill is accepted. This is quite right; it is the duty of the P.T.E. to decide what kind and level of public transport services are needed locally. In fact, as I understand it, it is prepared to consider taking it on provided that some


financial help is forthcoming and provided that it does not have to assume a permanent obligation to go on running the service.
Financial help may be needed, as I see it, under two heads. First, there is capital expenditure. All concerned seem to agree that, now that the Tyne Tunnel is taking the vehicular traffic, the existing ferry boat, which is old in any case, is no longer suitable and that what is needed is a new smaller boat for pedestrians only. As my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) said, it is possible that my right hon. Friend could give a grant towards the capital cost of a new boat under Section 56 of the Transport Act, 1968.
Secondly, there is the question of help with the running costs. Here, I am afraid that my right hon. Friend cannot assist, because his power to give grants to ferries for this purpose is limited under Section 34 of the Transport Act to ferries serving rural areas. In the present case, there is no doubt that the great majority of the ferry's regular users are people living in the county boroughs of Tynemouth and South Shields, which the ferry joins.

Mr. Blenkinsop: In some other correspondence, my right hon. Friend made it clear that the Ministry might also be able to assist to some degree with certain special costs in landing stages as well.

Mr. Murray: My hon. Friend has had a great deal of correspondence on this. If he says that this point has been made by my right hon. Friend, I have no doubt that that is so.
The councils of both boroughs have petitioned against the Bill, and I am told that up till now neither of them has been prepared to provide money for the ferry. I must say that it seems to me that, where a service which has little hope of ever paying its way is continued because of its social importance to people living in a limited and clearly defined area, the prime responsibility for giving the necessary financial support ought to rest with the local authorities whose duty it is to look after the interests of the people concerned.
I do not wish to raise any objection to the Bill, and, as we have said before in correspondence, we shall, of course, be happy to help in any way that we can to resolve the differences of opinion between

the various interested parties; but I should like in closing to emphasise once more that this is essentially a local matter that can best be dealt with by the people on the spot.

8.39 p.m.

Mr. Harry Randall: This has been a very agreeable debate. There has been little hostility. It seems to me that there has been a desire for understanding. We all recognise the pressures on those who have a particular constituency interest. One expects them to raise their voice in the House so that their constituents may recognise that the view which they hold is presented to Parliament. When it is put to us that there are workers who are involved, this naturally strikes sympathy with all hon. Members.
The facts are, however, that the passenger traffic has decreased considerably. It has done so in a matter of a few years from something like 2½ million passengers down to about 900,000 per annum. This could be said also of road traffic—

Mr. Blenkinsop: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the 900,000, which is a considerable number, is on the very much reduced service which is now available as against the service which was available in the past.

Mr. Randall: I have not argued that it is an inconsiderable number. I could argue that it is sufficient for the ferry to be viable. That is our problem. If only there were sufficient passengers to maintain the ferry economically, that would be quite different, but there has been a serious decline in the number of passengers.
The Port of Tyne Authority rightly comes to the House, as did the previous organisation when there was consideration about whether the three ferries should be reduced. It was Parliament ultimately which gave the authority for two ferries to be withdrawn. Quite rightly, once more it is Parliament which has been asked to give consideration.
If we consider the position in the light of the facts which have been given to us this evening, there is a strong case for the Bill to go to the Select Committee. We have to underline tonight the wisdom of this debate on Second Reading. I


value very much the point of view which has been expressed by those who are opposed to the Bill. It helps me to understand it. I think that it will help the Select Committee. Already, I think, there has been an undertaking that when the matter is before the Select Committee due consideration will be given by the Port of Tyne Authority to the views which have been expressed in the debate.
The hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) referred to the power to abandon in Clause 10. The service is to be offered to the passenger transport executive. If for reasons of economy or viability the passenger transport executive refused to accept, surely it would be a strong reason for not expecting the Port of Tyne Authority to carry on if not even the passenger transport executive is prepared to do so. That situation, therefore, is covered. In any event, this is another matter for the Select Committee to look at.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Blenkinsop) has talked about the changes which have taken place. I have referred to the three ferries. My hon. Friend says that people do not want the old boat. There are not many of us who use it who do want it. It would have been much better to have given the real picture of this jolly old boat, of a midnight almost, and the conditions. However, we do not want the old boat.

Mr. Blenkinsop: We made clear that we want to get a new vessel. One of our complaints against the Tyne Commissioners is that they have been so damned slow with getting on with this and looking to the future.

Mr. Randall: Had my hon. Friend kept quiet a little while, I was going on to say that he wanted a new boat. But who will pay for the new boat?

Mr. Blenkinsop: There will be discussions.

Mr. Randall: Exactly. But somebody wants to know who is to be responsible for the 20 years' life of the boat, who will maintain it, who will adjudicate upon the fare and whether the fare is satisfactory. These are all urgent matters to be considered, especially if responsibility is to be transferred. The Bill gives the

opportunity for the passenger transport executive itself to give consideration to these matters.
I know that this involves the question of the transport of workers; I know that in the summer months sightseers use it, and that they like to visit the market; I know, of course, that it is a very agreeable and pleasant way of crossing the Tyne. I find, listening to the debate this evening, that most hon. Members agree that the opening of the Jarrow Tunnel has much reduced the traffic on the ferry. I know that this evening it has been said that the boat is out of date and that it needs to be replaced by a passenger ferry. There is agreement, too, I find in the debate, that the passenger transport executive for Tyneside should have the responsibility. Having myself seen the figures of passenger traffic and the declining numbers, I must say that it is very doubtful indeed whether a new boat could be self-supporting without a continuing rise in the tolls to a quite unacceptable level. That the passenger transport executive could take over is in line with the Bill; this is what is set out in the Bill; but without powers to transfer, the executive just cannot take over, if the ferry is to be continued only as a passenger ferry.
I think it would be unwise to reject the Bill. The power which the authority seeks to abandon the ferry can only be exercised by the authority if it offers the ferry to the passenger transport executive, and it is declined by that body. The authority told me that the passenger transport executive, under duties imposed under the Transport Act, 1968, can only decline to take it over if the executive decides that the ferry is unnecessary or is totally uneconomic. If this is so it seems to me that the Bill is placing the responsibility where it belongs, and it would be unfair, in my view, to expect the port authority to go on running it.
I want to advance several reasons why I think the passenger transport executive seems to be the better able to run the ferry. It receives grants under the Transport Act 1968; it can continue to run uneconomical services if, in its view, there is a need so to do; it can, as has been said in the debate, precept on local authorities within its area to meet a deficit. The authority, as my hon. Friend


the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) said, cannot do any of these things. There are also the duties of the passenger transport executive. It is its task to integrate the passenger transport services for the Tyneside area. Therefore, in my view, it is best for judging the need and the necessity for the ferry services; it will have the necessary knowledge of the facts, and it will know the numbers of those who travel, and the costs.
There is a suggestion that this has been rushed. It has been suggested, I understand from correspondence, that there should be a public inquiry. But, on the suggestion of the port authority, the passenger transport executive recently initiated a survey on the origin and destination of passengers and it has sponsored a study of a suitable boat, if required, The authority has met half the cost of

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed.

this, the other half being shared by the executive and the two harbour boards.

These measures should surely assist the executive to decide whether the ferry should continue. The Bill does nothing to impede the consideration of those things. Indeed, it assists some of the objects of those who are opposed to it. It provides the means by which a transfer can be made and allows the executive plenty of time to reach a decision. It would be quite inaccurate to suggest that there has been any rush in this matter because the authority only wants to get the power to abandon it. I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading, and that it will be able to go to the Select Committee.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 81, Noes 38.

Division No. 71.]
AYES
[8.51 p.m.


Abse, Leo
Golding, John
Mawby, Ray


Alldritt, Walter
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


Archer, Peter (R'wley Regis &amp; Tipt'n)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Molloy, William


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hannan, William
Murray, Albert


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Norwood, Christopher


Bagier, Gordon A. T,
Hazell, Bert
Oram, Bert


Bence, Cyril
Hobden, Dennis
Oswald, Thomas


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Bishop, E. S.
Hoy, Rt. Hn. James
Randall, Harry


Boyden, James
Hunter, Adam
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Brooks, Edwin
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n &amp; St.P'cras, S.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lawson, George
Tinn, James


Coe, Denis
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)
Varley, Eric G.


Costain, A. P.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dalyell, Tam
Lomas, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Loughlin, Charles
Wilkins, W. A.


Dobson, Ray
Lubbock, Eric
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Doig, Peter
McCann, John
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &amp; Crom'ty)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Woof, Robert


English, Michael
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)



Eyre, Reginald
McNamara, J. Kevin
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Faulds, Andrew
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Mr. Bernard Conlan and


Finch, Harold
Marks, Kenneth
Mr. David Watkins.


Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)




NOES


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hawkins, Paul
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Hay, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Black, Sir Cyril
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Tilney, John


Booth, Albert
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John


Braine, Bernard
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Wall, Patrick


Bullus, Sir Eric
Longden, Gilbert
Wiggin, A. W.


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Crowder, F. P.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Morgan, Gcraint (Denbigh)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Farr, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald



Fisher, Nigel
Nicholls, Sir Harmar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Foster, Sir John
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Dame Irene Ward and


Grant, Anthony
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Mr. Arthur Blenkinsop.

BRIGHTON CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Dennis Hobden: The House will recall that on a previous occasion the Bill was defeated by a small majority. We make no apology for bringing it back one year later, although some critics have taken our action as being some sort of slight against a time limit, as though we in this House never discuss the same issue twice. It is the people of Brighton who have the right to feel indignant about the previous treatment of the Bill, because on two occasions, by a majority of two to one, they have indicated in town polls that they want the Measure.
When I last spoke on the subject I was soon brought to order when I mentioned what my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) termed the "magic" word "marina". I therefore say at once that the present Bill is consequential on the Brighton Marina Act. By that Act Brighton has permission to go ahead with the marina, so that is not the principle for which we seek the House's approval. The dividing line between the Brighton Marina Act and the present Bill may be very tenuous in parts, but I hope to remain within the rules of order.
The Act left open one very important matter. Section 41 stated:
…any part of the authorised development…shall not be opened for use unless and until such additional road facilities as the Minister certifies to be required to meet those conditions have been provided to his satisfaction".
In other words, adequate access roads to deal with all the traffic must be provided before the marina can be opened.
When the 1968 Measure was being discussed by a Select Committee of the House of Commons, the Chairman of that Committee said that the whole scheme should be completed without resort to any compulsory purchase powers; that is to say, the private company should not have power of compulsory purchase. Those remarks, however, related only to compulsory purchase

powers for the company, because later in the proceedings, when counsel for the promoters indicated by inference that the Committee would have no objection to the use of compulsory purchase if it were exercised by Brighton Corporation, the Committee agreed with that view. In other words, the private company could not have compulsory purchase powers, but the corporation could if it applied for them.
I am not permitted to deal with the recent spate of Early Day Motions, but I may say that certain criticisms made of the Bill here and elsewhere are a travesty of the facts, and show complete ignorance of Brighton. In dealing with objections and criticisms, I must make it clear that, whether or not the marina comes to Brighton, the new road system outlined in the Bill would have to come into being within about the next 10 years. As long ago as 1933, Brighton Corporation had mooted plans to deal with this problem. The local authority envisages that it will be necessary by about 1980. The Marina Act has itself made it necessary for those plans to be brought forward.
The road scheme would be carried out in three stages. The first stage would be completed as soon as possible, for it would provide the access roads to the marina. Obviously with an undertaking as vast as the marina there will be need for lorries and other vehicles to be able to approach the site with materials and not to foul up the existing traffic system in the area. At a later stage there will be provision of underpasses so that access to the site will not interfere with normal traffic on Brighton's South Coast Road, Marine Parade and Madeira Drive. The third and final stage will be carried out in about 1977 or towards the end of the building of the marina. That stage has been envisaged for many years and will provide facilities for dealing with the growth of the normal traffic of Brighton as well as the additional growth of traffic which the marina will bring.
Traffic counts in 1969 showed that there were almost 2,000 vehicles per hour on the coast road, 710 on Arundel Road, 650 on Eastern Road, 480 on Whitehawk Road and 330 on Wilson's Avenue. All those roads are affected by this Bill. Current studies suggest that within 30 years those figures will be doubled. I


believe that to be an underestimate, but in any case it shows a striking need for the passage of the Bill.
I shall deal with some of the criticism which has been made. I was amazed to see that the proposals were said to affect trade, industry and employment, the inference being that those matters would be affected adversely. I can hardly imagine that the Bill would be supported by the local chamber of commerce, Sussex Federation of Industries and Brighton Trades Council, with over 20,000 trade union members, if those criticisms were valid. Those organisations have stated publicly that they support the Bill. The local trades council is particularly concerned because unemployment in Brighton is above the national average and is at its highest figure since 1948. One can understand that concern. It is hoped that when the work begins over 480 will be employed on construction for about seven years and when it is completed there will be 1,000 permanent jobs on the site.
We are informed that old people's homes and nursing homes will be affected. There is not a single old persons' home in the area and only one nursing home is there. That will not be affected by the scheme. We are told that the scheme will have an adverse effect on the fire station. This is not the main fire station but a local substation. Arguments are put forward that fire engines will decant on to a traffic roundabout and that there is something wrong with that principle. Those who say that cannot know that in Brighton the main fire station's engines decant on to a roundabout on which five roads converge. In fact this has some advantages which would also apply to this area when the new roundabout is introduced. I should hardly have thought that this scheme would receive the approval of the Ministry of Transport if that were a valid reason for opposing it.
We are told that the proposals would mean increased traffic, but that is what the Bill is about—to deal with the traffic. We are trying to cure, not to cause, the complaint. Another criticism is that it will affect the local school of St. Marks. St. Marks School is to move in any case and it would not be affected in any way by the proposals in the Bill.
I have dealt with some criticisms based on imaginary effects. Some actual points in the Bill obviously have to be looked at, because a scheme of this kind means that there will be some movement of ordinary people and businesses. Apart from dwelling houses, which I shall deal with later, there are two garages, a bakery, a burial ground, a gas holder and a few other businesses in the area under discussion. But none of these has petitioned against the Bill and negotiations for the purchase of the business premises are going ahead reasonably and should present no difficulty. Agreement has been reached with both the Society of Friends and the Gas Board with regard to the implications of the Bill, and Clauses 30 and 32 deal with these points.
One other matter I regard as important is the power of compulsory purchase. To provide these access roads for the first phase of the scheme, it is necessary to purchase 17 dwellings in addition to the business premises I have mentioned. Nine of these 17 premises have already been purchased by the Corporation and contracts have been exchanged for six more, leaving two outstanding. Of these two, one is owner-occupied but is let on a controlled tenancy. The owner does not object to acquisition, and no difficulty is envisaged there.
The remaining property belongs to a lady who has petitioned against the Bill. The Corporation may not pay more than statute permits, that is no more than the market value of the property, which is roughly between £4,200 and £4,700. The Marina Company, on a voluntary basis, has offered £7,000 although adjoining owners have accepted £6,000 or less. Negotiations on this property are not proceeding at this stage because the owner wants the company to pay the betterment levy in addition to the selling price and legal opinion is that it is illegal to do that under the Act of Parliament which covers the matter.
It cannot be said that the owner has been harshly treated and I hope that this House will not turn down this application for compulsory purchase powers on the basis of one property for which a good offer has been made. If the House did, it would be going in the face of its own legislation on previous occasions, which decrees that local authorities may not pay more than the market value.
I mention finance because that is also important. The total cost of the roads is something over £1½ million of which the Marina Company will pay almost £800,000 leaving about £900,000 as the net cost to be found by the town. These are not accurate calculations but rough figures which will serve for this debate. The net cost to the town will be spent over a 10-year period and with interest and repayments on a 30-year basis will cost £1,870,000. But during that 30 years Brighton Corporation will receive in rent and rates from the Marina £5¾ million—a profit of nearly £4 million. I should not have thought that that was to be sneezed at, but if the roads are not built now almost £1½ million must be spent on the scheme in any case in 10 years' time. But the corporation would not get a penny back on that account.
It has taken seven years to get this Measure before the House since it was first presented to the Brighton Planning Committee. One could hardly describe that as a mad rush. The people of Brighton clearly want the Bill passed, and I hope I have demonstrated that there is not a single reason why it should be rejected.
In this place, politics being what they are, we are not always united as between one side and another on the issues before us. But this is an issue in which it is not necessary to have a division between the two sides of the House. In Brighton, all the parties—Labour, Liberal and Conservative—are united on the need for this Measure, because so many of us, regardless of politics, have the best interests of Brighton at heart. If there is one thing in which we believe, it is in the overriding need to improve Brightons amenities and to keep it in the forefront of the national and international scene.
Let there be no mistake about it: the Bill will have a great effect on the national and international scene and will earn for this country much valuable foreign currency. In Brighton, we are concerned, in all parties, to keep our town in the forefront, without destroying its present amenities. It is relevant to add that this scheme has the blessing of the Fine Art Commission, the Regency Society and the other local amenity organisations.
For all those reasons, I beg the House to give the Bill a Second Reading. It has willed the end in the Brighton Marina Act. Brighton wants it to will the means, the Brighton Corporation Bill, for the provision of the necessary roads.

9.16 p.m.

Mr. Hector Hughes: My first task is to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Hobden) not only on his speech tonight but on his assiduous attention to the interests of his constituents, of whom I have the honour to be one.
I say with regret that I think that my hon. Friend is wrong on this occasion, though that will not deter me from voting for him when the occasion comes. I agree with him that Brighton is worthy of a marina. We are not discussing the marina tonight; we are discussing the access roads to it. But Brighton is more than local. Brighton is national and international. It is world-famous, and frequented as the "Queen of Resorts" by foreigners as well as by Britons.
No one knows better than my hon. Friend that Kemptown is a built-up area, with classic architecture, nursing homes, hospitals, old persons' homes, schools, churches, and a protective fire brigade, none of which should be the victims of the demolition which the Bill would entail. My hon. Friend knows also the inviting alternative. Outside Kemptown and outside Black Rock, there are wide open spaces, acres of empty country asking for access roads to Ovingdean Gap, which would be one of the suitable places for a marina. If I may for a moment more mention the magic word "marina", I have already suggested that the appropriate place would be in Brighton itself, between the two piers. But I shall not stress that tonight, since it would not be strictly relevant to this subject.
The road development scheme which the Bill envisages would ruin Kemptown, that classic place with its homes, its fire brigade, and all the rest. I stress the fire brigade, for in these days of frequent fires and bombs unaccounted for, it is important that the fire brigade shall have free access to the scene of a conflagration.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I know that the hon. and learned Gentleman is not anxious to widen the discussion. I hope that he will link what he is saying to


the question whether we should provide for roads to the marina for which the Marina Act was passed in 1968.

Mr. Hughes: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I merely mentioned the fire brigade in passing because it will be handicapped by this scheme if it is built, for it would involve the fire brigade going through underground alleys and tunnels and thus being delayed in reaching the scene of a conflagration.
The plan is a bad plan, and I hope that the House will reject it for a variety of reasons, which I shall put briefly and categorically. I am not against the marina. I should love to see a marina there—but a marina worthy of the place, with access roads worthy of the place, too. There are alternatives, and that which I have suggested, between the two piers, has plenty of access roads.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. and learned Member may not discuss on this Bill alternatives to the marina for which the Marina Act was passed in 1968. We are discussing whether the marina should have the roadways to it which are envisaged in the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I will do my best, Mr. Speaker, to obey your diktat, as I always do, for I have the greatest respect for your Rulings.
I oppose the Bill for reasons which I shall state categorically and briefly. It is an eccentric Bill and a devious Bill with an eccentric history. Secondly, it is the same Bill in all material respects as that which was presented to the House only 11 months ago and rejected. That Bill, like this Bill, was presented as a Brighton Corporation Bill but in fact it was produced by a private shareholders' company to exploit a marina and access roads in a dangerous rocky place.
Fourthly, that Bill was presented to Parliament last year and rejected. That, I submit, is an adequate reason why it should be rejected now. Fifthly, a strange and sinister feature of the Bill is that on the last occasion it was voted on twice. Your Deputy, Mr. Speaker, was in the Chair. After a Division had been taken, an hon. Member for the Bill rose to a so-called point of order and said that

he had been waiting in the Lobby to vote but that there had been no one to take his vote. Your Deputy, therefore, allowed that eccentricity to take place.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Chair is not responsible for the eccentricities of history. The hon. and learned Member must come to the Bill.

Mr. Hughes: I am merely stating the facts and history, which are on record.
That Bill was, as this Bill is, a breach of statute law, and I shall quote the statute, which is detailed, clear and precise and concerning which no mistakes could be made. In these circumstances it is not surprising, indeed it is to be expected, that those who voted against that breach of statute law included Her Majesty's Attorney-General, Her Majesty's Solicitor-General, a former Solicitor-General, their junior counsel, the Secretary of State of Scotland, and the Minister of Education, all of whom were in my view quite right in doing so, and I hope that they will do the same again tonight.
Before I go further I should like to quote, for the guidance of the House, from the 17th edition of "Erskine May" at page 871. This is what it says about Bills promoted by companies for their own profit and against the community interest:
The promoters of a bill may prove beyond a doubt that their own interests will be advanced by its success and no one may complain of injury or urge any specific objection, yet, if Parliament apprehends that it will be hurtful to the community, it is rejected as if it were a public measure, or qualified by restrictive enactments not solicited by the parties.
In my submission, that applies to this Bill which we are considering because the Bill is for the benefit of a company's shareholders. It is not promoted by the local authority. The character of Kemp-town with which it deals, would be changed. Old persons' homes, nursing homes, schools, the fire brigade—if I may mention it again—and other amenities would be imperilled. That is the advice that is given by that distinguished volume upon which you, Mr. Speaker, and we, rely.
I now come to a fundamental breach of statute. I have with me the Local


Government Act, 1933, which states in paragraph 1 of the Ninth Schedule:
Where the council of a borough or urban district have deposited a bill in Parliament, notice shall be given by placards and by advertisement in one or more local newspapers circulating in the borough or district in two successive weeks stating—
and then follow several paragraphs. The paragraph to which I want to direct attention is (e):
that a public meeting of local government electors will be held on a day named, not being less than fourteen nor more than twenty-eight days after the first advertisement of the notice, for the purpose of considering the question of promotion of the bill.
The essential word is "considering".
The meeting was held in a rather peculiar way, but there was no consideration because the chairman of the meeting announced at the beginning that no questions would be allowed. How can one consider without asking a question? If a person is asked to consider a problem, he will ask himself questions, such as "Is this right or is it wrong?" A fortiori where a meeting is asked to consider a question, surely those who attend that meeting are entitled to ask questions and get answers. In the absence of questions and answers there was no consideration. Therefore, the meeting was abortive. The Bill should not be accepted by the House on that ground.
That is one reason why I tabled my Motion No. 143, which says:
That this House deprecates and rejects, as in breach of statute, the action of the Chairman of the Town Poll meeting held, in pursuance of statute, in Brighton for the purpose of considering, statutory words, the forthcoming Brighton Corporation Bill, in ruling that no questions from the floor or elsewhere would be allowed and in acting on that ruling throughout the meeting; further expresses the view that the meeting so conducted and so limited did not and could not consider, according to statute, the effect of the Bill on the people, the trade, industry, employment, safety and residential amenities of the rich and poor of Brighton or of the rival town of Kemp Town about two miles from Brighton which would result from the Bill and on the old persons homes, nursing homes, schools, protective fire brigade station and other amenities and facilities already at Kemp Town and on the resulting dangers from increased traffic, from fire and from other consequential risks, and also that the Chairman's refusal to allow answers to questions on these and other relevant dangers to life, limb and property was a breach of statute law which breach made that meeting abortive and it should be so declared by this honourable House; and fur-

ther recommends that any such question arising on the construction of the relevant statute should be referred to Mr. Attorney General, and that in the meantime the Bill should not be further considered by this honourable House.
I have already said that it was considered by the whole House and voted on by the Law Officers, past and present, who thereby expressed their own view on that proceeding.
What should the borough council have done to bring itself within the terms of the Statute? It summoned a poll, a meeting of electors, but there was not a full meeting. Brighton and Hove have 127,000 electors, but only one-ninth of that number attended the meeting. What was wrong with the summons to the meeting? What was wrong with the announcement that a meeting of that kind was being held, when 102,107 electors stayed away from the meeting? Did the electors of Brighton have an opportunity of "considering"—that is the statutory word—the matter? In my submission they did not.
To make the matter worse, at the beginning of the meeting the chairman made a speech in which he announced that no questions would be allowed. Not only that, but no speeches were allowed. The meeting was run on speeches from the platform and the one-ninth of the population who were there had to sit down.
That meeting was a failure; it was abortive; and the Bill should not be presented to the House. There are other reasons why the Bill should be rejected, which other speakers will deal with in detail; I will not cover the whole ground myself. On all those grounds I ask the House to reject the Bill.

9.35 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I doubt whether the House need spend much time in coming to a decision on the Bill. As the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemp-town (Mr. Hobden) said, the House approved the Brighton Marina project when it passed the 1968 Act, which gave the Brighton Marina Company certain rights to build access roads. The Brighton Corporation, very wisely, saw an opportunity for improving its own road system by an alteration of the original plans for access roads, but that alteration involved acquiring land and


building roads prior to requirements. For that purpose the corporation needs the authority of the House. The scheme also needs the acquisition of private property, and for that purpose too the corporation comes to the House.
The corporation came to the House last year with a Bill to acquire the property compulsorily and to build the roads ahead of requirements. There was opposition to the granting of the powers of compulsory purchase indirectly to the commercial enterprise that will contribute about £4 million to the rates. I say "indirectly" because the corporation would actually be exercising those powers. On that occasion the corporation and the company were, in effect, told by the House to go away and try to negotiate the purchase of the land by agreement and not by compulsory powers. They have negotiated the purchase of the land by agreement, except in one case.
The properties concerned are small terraced houses. The district valuers' valuation of those houses is £4,250. The company has purchased all but one of those houses at figures not exceeding £6,000 and has resold them to the corporation at the district valuer's valuation of £4,250. In the one outstanding case the petitioner against the Bill, the owner-occupier, demands £7,000 plus betterment levy. In general, I would support an owner against compulsory powers, but I do not take that support beyond all reason. I think that the corporation and the company are justified in coming back to Parliament with the Bill and asking for a final decision so that the access roads can be built, and I hope the House will give the Bill a Second Reading.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The whole House will be aware of the very close devotion of my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kempton (Mr. Hobden) to his constituency. He obviously has at heart the best interests of Brighton as he sees them. At the same time, the wider issues involved need to be discussed by the House. It is true that the House approved the Brighton Marina Act, and we cannot go into that question again, but it turned down the scheme for roads, and strong

arguments are, therefore, needed to reverse that decision.
We have a Minister who is responsible for the environment and the freedom of the foreshore, and these are matters of great concern, but are not for discussion this evening. I feel that the marina scheme is an important breach of what I consider to be absolutely crucial and that it was accepted rather too readily. I also believe that the extensive road works are a further breach of the rights of the people of this country to their own foreshore. Before this great liberty that we enjoy is further eroded, much stronger evidence than we have had needs to be put before us.
In the debate last year, the Parliamentary Secretary talked about the fairly extensive road works which would have to take place, and tonight my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown referred to seven years of building. During the whole of this time, this area, an area of great beauty, will be in a very unfavourable situation. It will be untidy and unkempt and subject to all the kinds of road works which we elsewhere accept reluctantly, although in this case the damage will be even greater.
One point not so far mentioned is that Clause 5 says that the corporation will be allowed to
use and appropriate such of the lands delineated on the deposited plans—".
It is clear that some of the lands involved will be those forming part of the Under-cliff Walk. A number of people expect that the corporation will use these powers moderately and will replace the present Undercliff Walk by one as good.
Personally, I doubt it. I think that it is extremely unlikely. This is a place of relative seclusion, because one knows that if one once enters the Undercliff Walk, one goes all the way to Rotting-dean, and it is not a walk on which many people venture. But when the marina is constructed, the walk will not be the secluded place it now is. It will be crowded with people from this £15 million project. Those who enter on the walk will not be the kind of people who now enjoy it, and I doubt whether many people will summon up the inclination to start a walk in such unpropitious circumstances. Instead of being a walk in relative isolation, as now, it will be crowded.
In my youth, I knew this stretch along the cliff well. Admittedly, it is not what it then was, but there is still a feeling that one has only the sea and the seagulls. Although there are now houses nearby, there is an atmosphere which will be destroyed once these access roads, with their motor cars pouring into the area, are allowed.
Before we vote tonight, we should understand what kind of operation this is. Whenever a financial group teams up with a council in order to destroy or change or affect an environment that is important not only to that town but to those who visit it and enjoy it, it is not enough to say that the people of that town have—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is now drifting, I am sure unconsciously, into discussing the Marina Act, which was passed in 1968. He must address himself, as he has done for the most part of his speech, to the roads by which it is proposed to make access to the marina about which we have already enacted.

Mr. Sheldon: I fully accept your ruling, of course, Mr. Speaker. The point I was making was that in constructing these roads and acting together with the town council in this construction, this financial group must be open to the scrutiny of not only Brighton Town Council and the citizens of Brighton but the House of Commons and the whole of the country. We are not intruding on a private matter when we investigate it in this way. We are not intruders, but looking after the wider interests, and the wider interests demand that we vote against the Bill.

9.44 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Bob Brown): It is not my intention to detain the House for longer than it takes to make a brief intervention, and you have my assurance, Mr. Speaker, that, apart from an incidental mention of the marina, I will stick strictly to your earlier ruling.
My right hon. Friend's interest in the Bill arises from the proximity of the marina site to the principal road, A.259. The traffic generated by the proposed marina from such a development will seriously overload this road unless adequate provision can be made by way of road works for a satisfactory means of access to the site.
The scheme detailed in the Bill comprises a large gyratory system extending as far north as Roedean Road and giving access to the marina site. The whole system will be grade separated from the A.259. This means that the marina traffic will not interfere with the traffic using the coast road.
The new roads will be local roads; they will not be eligible for grant from the Ministry of Transport. The Bill gives Brighton Corporation the power to borrow money to construct these roads, subject to Treasury consent and Ministry of Transport approval, but the grant of loan sanction must, of course, depend upon the priority accorded to the scheme, and Brighton will certainly be given no special treatment in respect of these roadworks.
These proposals are substantially the same as those contained in the Bill debated on 17th March of last year, and, as I said then, my right hon. Friend is satisfied that the proposed road works will make adequate provision for the traffic likely to be generated by the development.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. J. T. Price: I make no apology for again opposing the Bill. I want to keep strictly in order in the few words which I intend to offer to the House.
I oppose the Bill, not on any legalistic grounds. These have been amply deployed by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). Nor do I oppose it on the technical grounds put forward by the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page). I oppose the Bill as wholeheartedly as I can, and as I have done before, on the ground that with this Measure in the hands of the Brighton Corporation the people of Brighton and of Britain will go further along the road towards destroying their environment, which I regard as one of our most treasured inheritances.
I know that tonight we cannot rehash all the old arguments, and I do not wish to, but I am astonished that at this time of day a purely commercial development, which will involve the use of a great deal of capital, by perhaps shrewd financiers who have their eyes on equally lucrative returns on that capital, should


invoke the aid of the Brighton Corporation as partners in this enterprise, purely for commercial ends.
The coastline of this part of the country has been despoiled to a considerable extent, and certainly to the westward end of Brighton it has gone far enough.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a matter for the Marina Act, which is an Act of Parliament. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are talking about roads. I know that he is trying to keep in order, but we are talking about roads leading to a marina which has been authorised by Act of Parliament.

Mr. Price: I am very much obliged to you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the distinction. These are roads, but without them the original limited authority given by the House—within the secreted chambers upstairs, let it be said—is ineffective. The House and the Select Committee decided that it was not competent for the private developer, employing private capital for private gain, to issue compulsory purchase orders in respect of the properties which were needed to complete the scheme, and I therefore resist the granting of these additional powers.
I hope that my hon. and learned Friend does not mind my mentioning this, but he got one matter a bit wrong. He said that when a special meeting was called at Brighton, apparently by issuing the statutory notices which have to be put out on this occasions, only one-ninth of the electorate of 127,000 attended. I am astonished at that. I think that my hon. and learned Friend has his arithmetic slightly wrong, because, even if only one-ninth of the electorate attended, more than 13,000 people would have been present, and I have never heard of a meeting at Brighton being attended by so many people, even when the most attractive speakers were there.
One usually respects local autonomy in these matters. If national issues are not involved, I should be the first to refrain from intervening in a local matter. If the people of a town want something, provided that it does not conflict with the interests of the country, I should hesitate to intervene. This is a case where the combined impact of a

town council which is looking for additional rateable value and trade and private developers who are looking for a return on their capital conflict with the national interest. Because there is a conflict between the national interest and the venal interests of private developers, the Bill should be resisted by this House.
Earlier, we had contributions from a number of hon. Members who had no strong feelings in the matter. I drifted into the House on that occasion and was prepared to listen dutifully and respectfully to those who knew more about the issue than I did. Tonight, having read all the propaganda sent to me by interested parties, I remain unconvinced that these powers should be given to the Brighton Corporation merely to provide a cloak for the ultimate ambitions of private interests. Therefore, I appeal to the House to reject the Bill.

9.51 p.m.

Mr. Julian Amery: As the House will appreciate, I am a relative newcomer to this situation, having come from the dark, satanic mills of Lancashire. Since I was elected by the people of Brighton, Pavilion, I have busied myself in finding out their wishes and those of their neighbours. I have found a very broad measure of agreement about this Bill.
I have consulted the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Hobden), my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Maddan), my predecessor, Sir William Teeling, who represented the constituency for many years, the majority and minority views on the council, and the Chamber of Commerce. In addition, I have been informed of the views of the Trade and Labour Council.
The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes) said that insufficient consideration was given to the issue. However, there was not just one town poll taken in a hurry. There were two town polls, and there was massive correspondence in the Press and general discussion everywhere. I will not say that I was inundated, but I was freely sprinkled with correspondence. Had there been any lack of proper consideration by the Council, that was a matter for the Minister, but I did not understand him to express any doubts about the procedures which had been pursued.
I must admit to an interest in the matter. I do not know whether all hon. Members who have spoken have done the same. I am a member of the Sussex Motor Yacht Club. It is a privilege which is accorded to most hon. Members who represent Brighton, Pavilion. I have not a yacht, with or without a motor, but I have been made a member of that club. I must confess that I am a follower of one of the country's leading yachtsmen—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman must not let his party loyalty drift him into discussing the marina. We are talking about the roads to the marina, not the marina.

Mr. Amery: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker. I am trying not to discuss the marina but only the approach roads. As the House will be aware, the establishment of the marina depends not only on access from the sea but on the ability of yachtsmen to approach from the land and to board their boats in the proposed site.
Let me say a word about the opposition to the Bill which we are promoting, a Bill which is consequential upon the Marina Act, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kemptown has explained. There are two petitioners remaining against the Bill and I am advised by the Corporation of Brighton that one of them has already withdrawn, in effect, his petition, although the technical moment of withdrawal would come only in the Committee stage of the Bill.
There is one petition outstanding from a Mrs. Pay Nash. "Nash" has a regency ring; "Pay" has, perhaps, a rather procedural ring as we are discussing today. Mrs. Pay Nash has asked to have the betterment levy paid by the corporation or by the company as well as the price of the house. I can tell the House that the corporation would have been delighted to do this, except that we are advised by counsel that it is illegal for the corporation to do it.

Mr. Hector Hughes: On a point of order. The speech to which we are listening, Mr. Speaker, seems to be a mass of ex-relatione conversations. Is that in order. What evidence has the right hon. Gentleman to offer that those conversations are being accurately reported by him?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Gentleman has called my attention to part of the speech which he finds uninteresting or narratives of conversation I cannot rule on that.

Mr. Amery: Where the business interests are concerned I understand that no objections have been raised and that if there is any disagreement about the compensation to be paid, there is agreement to submit the matter to arbitration. The Society of Friends and the Gas Board have also reached, I understand, broad agreement with the Corporation and the Regency Society, whose objections I was most interested to investigate, has withdrawn its objections and takes no position against the Bill at the present time.
Therefore, why do we bother the House about the Bill? We would gladly have avoided doing so except that we have been advised by counsel that we had to do it principally because the new road which is to be created will, for a period of a year or two, be an access road for construction purposes and not a public highway. This is the only reason why we have to bother the House. Otherwise, the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North might have slapped an injunction against us.
There is no question of nursing homes or old people's homes being upset or disturbed by this matter. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to them, but I have had assurances from the corporation today that there is no disturbance where they are concerned.
We have had—and I appreciate, accept and understand it—objections from vested property interests, those who have houses overlooking this fine view. The hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, South,—

Mr. Hector Hughes: North.

Mr. Amery: Is it North?

Mr. Hughes: Yes.

Mr. Amery: Whether it is North or South, the hon. and learned Member prefers to live in Brighton. I salute his good taste. He is very welcome.

Mr. Hughes: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amery: Yes, in a moment. Before doing so I should like to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman is very welcome to me in Brighton and I often have the pleasure of greeting him at the station. I hope that he is equally welcome to his hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown.

Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is making fun about my constituency. May I venture to point out that when he described himself as the Member of Parliament for Brighton, he was wrong. He is the Member for the Pavilion Division of Brighton.

Mr. Amery: I stand corrected and accept the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument.
What I would say is that Brighton, with its Regency traditions grave and gay, wants to see the Bill passed. The Council has spoken. There have been two town polls. Parliament has passed the Marina Act—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Brighton Corporation Bill set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Dobson.]

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

Mr. Amery: The council has expressed its view. The people of Brighton have spoken. Parliament has approved the Marina Act to which this Bill is consequential. Let us, therefore, not hesitate to give effect to a decision which has only one purpose, and that is to give effect to the will of the people of Brighton.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

The House proceeded to a Division.

The Tellers having come to the Table—

Mr. Speaker: For the benefit of the House, the procedure is that when a Vote has been called Mr. Speaker asks for Tellers. I had announced the Tellers in the names of Mr. Hobden and Mr. Maddan for the Ayes and Mr. J. T. Price and Mr. Arthur Davidson for the Noes. I see some Members at the Table telling the Votes who were not the official Tellers I named.
I must, therefore, now put the Question again.

Question put, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House proceeded to a Division—

Mr. HOBDEN and Mr. MADDAN were appointed Tellers for the Ayes, but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

INDUSTRIAL TRAINING [MONEY] (No. 2)

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Industrial Training Act 1964, it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable under that Act out of moneys provided by Parliament which is attributable to the payment of fees to members of the Central Training Council, of allowances for loss of remunerative time to members of industrial training boards and committees thereof and of salaries to certain chairmen of tribunals established under that Act.—[Mr. Dell.]

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS (PAYMENT)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: In June, 1969, following the Report of the Fulton Committee, the Prime Minister presented to Parliament a White Paper entitled, "Information and the Public Interest". Referring to the Official Secrets Act, the White Paper, in paragraph 32, recognised that Departments do in practice authorise the release of much official information, but stated that the ultimate responsibility must rest with Ministers themselves. The conclusion of the White Paper in paragraph 36, was that the Government agreed with the Fulton Committee in wishing to see more public explanation of administrative processes and increasing participation of civil servants.
My subject this evening is the administration of social security benefits, a subject on which the public have the clearest right to be most fully informed.
My objects are to assert that the Ministers in charge of Health and Social Security totally failed to create any public awareness of what has been happening in this field; that they failed to take the most obviously necessary remedial measures; that they have thereby created a wide and increasing suspicion among the public at the extent of the scandals in this administrative field; that, worse still, they have created a suspicion that the Ministry was itself anxious that such

scandals should be hushed up; that only when their hand was forced by the unauthorised publications of these scandals by one of their own officials were the proper public admissions made and proper remedial actions taken; that their action in dismissing the officer in question was an act of petty spite for an offence which as their own subsequent admissions and measures have proved was wholly in the public interest; and that all these consequences flowed from the fact that in the administration of these benefits the Prime Minister's White Paper has been almost totally ignored by the Ministers in charge of Health and Social Security.
One cold fact—to be found buried in a volume of Government statistics—is that in the five years from 1964 to 1969 the amount of public money spent on supplementary benefits increased from £239 million to £487 million—more than double.
It is a tragic coincidence that this debate should be taking place on the day of the death of our colleague, Roger Gresham Cooke, who, together with my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Fortescue), was first responsible, on 20th October, 1969, for raising in the House the matter of these scandals themselves.
The Minister's reply on that occasion can be fairly summarised as follows: that the proportion of the fraudulent cases was very small; that the work of the officials was very good; that the amount of rumour-mongering was very wrong, and that the state of morale in the offices of the Supplementary Benefit Commission was not very low. The Minister added that individual cases of abuse ought to be reported by members of the public, and concluded, a trifle vaguely, by saying that there were probably additional measures that needed to be taken.
It is a just matter for comment that even these Ministerial statements would not have been made had not my hon. Friends brought up the matter in an Adjournment debate; and that they would not have raised the matter then but for a number of unauthorised disclosures by one of the Minister's own officials in the columns of that respected weekly, the Spectator.
The question to which the House ought to have an answer is why the facts of the situation have not been made known to the public by Ministers themselves, or possibly by their senior civil servants. This surely could have been done—and ought to have been done—in three ways: first, by statements to the House; secondly, by speeches and statements in the country; and, thirdly, by attempting to secure wide publicity for prosecutions in the courts.
I am not satisfied that the Ministers have performed their duties under any of those three heads. They are directly responsible, in consequence, for the public suspicion which now surrounds the whole subject to social security benefits and for the tide of rumour-mongering of which they are the first to complain.
One of the first accusations made in the Spectator by the Ministry's own official was that the special investigators were far too few in number to be able to cope with the various types of abuse. In view of what has happened, I must now ask the Minister why this situation was permitted to exist, for that it did exist has now been made clear by subsequent events.
On 15th December-10 weeks after the Spectator article—the Minister came to the House and announced the appointment of 100 extra specialist staff in 1970 as unemployment review officers and special investigators. It will be easy for the Minister to reply tonight that in fact this decision had been taken long before the Spectator article appeared, but the sad truth is that such a reply after what has happened will not now be believed by the public.
Quite recently it was reported in the Press that the Ministry officials' own association had called for the appointment of a special investigator for each office to check up on the layabouts and the frauds. More recently, it was reported that on a visit to one of his offices only last week the Minister was told by one of his women officials how difficult it was to contact the special investigator at short notice. In a recent article in the Spectator one of the Ministry's retired deputy regional controllers stressed the misuse of the Official Secrets Act to cover up embarrassing disclosure and the bad

effects of this both on morale of the staff and the standing of the Ministry.
The effect of doing this could hardly have been worse. Ministers must have known two years ago of the rising tide of indignation. There cannot be an hon. Member who has not been made aware of it by his constituents. In yesterday's Sunday Times we read of a miner, a shot firer, interviewed in the South Ayrshire constituency explaining that his Scottish National Party vote would actually be an anti-Labour vote because of too many deductions from pay and too many habitual layabouts on welfare.
All this is made worse by a Government which gives the appearance of condoning it. It is made much worse when belatedly the Government's hand is, or appears to have been, forced by publicity from elsewhere and action is taken which should have been taken months or years ago. Ministers have only themselves to blame if the conclusion that the public have drawn is that the Government are actively in league not only with the permissive but also with the layabout society.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): Shame!

Mr. More: I come to the question of the Ministry's own special investigator, Mr. Robin Page, who was responsible for spilling the beans about these scandals first in the Spectator and secondly in the News of the World. I think it a fair assessment that, whatever the breaches or offences of which he may have been guilty, Mr. Page's articles have been proved by the Government's own subsequent actions and admissions to have been wholly in the public interest.
It can hardly be open to question that both Mr. Page and the two newspapers concerned have contravened the Official Secrets Act. The Government have dismissed Mr. Page, and they have failed to prosecute the newspapers. One must ask why. The public answer will be that the Government preferred the soft target. They could get Mr. Page on his Civil Service undertaking which, like all civil servants, he had to sign, and they could duck the newspapers by the simple expedient of the Attorney-General not giving leave to prosecute. They could deal with the little fellow and let the two big fellows go scot free. Whether or not


the Government actively are in league with the permissive and layabout societies, the verdict will certainly be that they have ranged themselves with the bullies and the cowards.
Even at this stage, the Government could, I believe, do good by reversing both those decisions. They could to some extent put themselves in the clear by offering Mr. Page his job back. I hope that Mr. Page would have the dignity to refuse such an offer, on the view that he no longer wished to be associated with employers who had so blatantly failed in their own duty, but that would be a matter for him. More important in the public interest, the Government could still decide to prosecute the newspapers. This would bring the whole matter into the open and might greatly help to clear the public air. If they do not prosecute the newspapers, the conclusion must be that, having failed in their original duty of keeping the public informed, they now lack the courage to face the publicity which a prosecution would entail.
Whatever else is done, this Ministry—here I return to my starting point—might at least make some pretence of following the Prime Minister's own White Paper. How many public relations officers does the Ministry employ, and at what salaries? The Ministry produces its Annual Report every year. One searches them in vain for an indication of the extent of the scandals and of the remedial measures. The 1967 Report, on the contrary, commented with apparent pride on the "spectacular increase" in local office activity resulting from the success of Ministry publicity in overcoming reluctance to apply for benefits. This process, with its quaint phrasing, might be described in very different terms by some of the Ministry's own officials, about whom I wish now to say a word.
In a speech on 9th December, the Minister attempted to draw a red herring across the whole subject by protesting at the attacks made on his officials. He knows very well that the attack is not on his social security officials. No one can have anything but sympathy and admiration for the officials who every Friday have to fight the weekly battle in the social security offices. They are, in fact, the first victims of the present situation.
What about the senior civil servants in the Ministry? Under the White Paper,

both a right and a duty is imposed upon them as well as on the Minister. Did the Minister consult them about publicity and who should make it? Did he obtain advice from them? Have any of them made public statements on their own? Why did the Minister not frankly tell the public what the position was when there was still time? Whatever the part played by his senior officers, it is the Minister's ultimate responsibility, and it is he who must answer.

10.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. David Ennals): It is my usual custom when answering an Adjournment debate to thank the hon. Member for the points which he has raised and to congratulate him on having taken the opportunity to raise them. I cannot do that tonight. The hon. Gentleman the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) has made some deplorable statements in attacks both upon Ministers and, I believe, upon the integrity of those working for the Supplementary Benefits Commission.
The hon. Gentleman has accused Ministers of seeking to hush up the facts. That is utterly untrue. He knows that there have been statements made in the House of Commons and in the Adjournment debate to which he refers. There have been statements in answer to Questions. There has never been any reluctance on the part of my right hon. Friend or myself to answer any questions which are put. I have made a number of statements and speeches in the country, including Press releases.
I find it deplorable that the hon. Member, as an honoured Member of the House, should decide that he will give credence to the allegations made by individuals and to widely publicised reports in newspapers without seeking to find out for himself the accuracy of those statements. I believe that he is himself contributing to the rumour-mongering to which he referred. He has contributed to the gross exaggeration which there has been about the administration of the social security system, with inevitable reflections upon the social security officers up and down the country who seek to do their job effectively, and who, I believe, are doing their job effectively. I both deplore and deny the allegations which have been made against Ministers.
I will look first at the central point, which concerns the question of abuse of supplementary benefits. Both the hon. Member and I believe that a number of newspapers have grossly exaggerated the situation. I stand by the statement, to which he made reference, which I made when speaking in the House. I believe that we are dealing with a small but unscrupulous minority. We are dealing with a small group of those who are prepared to try to scrounge off the Welfare State. But the vast majority of those who are receiving benefits from the Supplementary Benefits Commission—and I believe that, if he is prepared to be frank, the hon. Member will agree that he knows in his heart of hearts that this is the case—are old people, retired people, widows, sick and disabled people and deserted wives. The hon. Member knows that we are dealing with a very small minority. He is nodding his head in agreement. If he knows that, then it is deplorable that, by taking the time of the House, he should seek to give the impression that we are dealing with abuse on a mass scale.
The job of the supplementary benefits officers is very difficult. It is to determine between right and wrong and whether the truth is presented to them—to sort out the sheep from the goats and to be certain, when they agree to make a payment, that they are doing so on the basis of evidence which is sound. It would be very easy for officers, when there is a doubt, to decide that they should always not give the benefit of that doubt to the applicant. But if we turn the screws too hard we shall do great damage to the vast proportion of the people, whose needs are genuine and whose needs we must meet.
The hon. Member's complaint, I think, is that we have not taken trouble to deal with those cases, which we can find out, in which there has been abuse. In fact, a great deal of work is done. Any suspicion which arises is fully investigated, and when fraud is established we do not hesitate to prosecute, after considering the circumstances of the individual and the seriousness of the offence. In 1968 there were 3,677 prosecutions against supplementary benefit claimants, including 1,460 against itinerants. The provisional figures for 1969 are 4,658

and 1,856 respectively. In addition, a general extension of payment by Giro through the post instead of cash is likely to make fraud much more difficult for the man out to make quick profits by moving rapidly about the country.
A great deal of investigation is done in local offices, but the more complex cases are passed to mobile special investigators. The number of these, now over 200, has been doubled since 1964 and a further increase has been authorised, as I said in the statement which I made to the House.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the decision to increase the number both of special investigators and of unemployment review officers was the result of any publicity in the Press or any statement made by anyone. That was utterly untrue. There has been a steady increase because we have known that it was necessary that we should have staff available and trained to deal with this small number of troublesome cases which occurred. The hon. Member may care to look at the date of the article to which he referred. He may then like to take note of the fact that the Civil and Public Services Association, to which, had he been a member, Mr. Page would have had the opportunity to make representations, suggested back in May at their annual conference that the time had come for an increase in staff. In any case, it was not surprising that there should be an increase, because there have been other increases during the course of the last five years.
In 1968 the special investigators dealt with over 13,000 cases of suspicion and over 6,000 allowances were reduced or withdrawn. In 1969 they cleared about 15,000 cases with similar results. This is certainly not inaction. It is significant that after careful investigation no proof of fraud could be found in more than half the cases which were thought to be doubtful.
It has also been alleged—it was alleged in the News of the World and in a statement made by Mr. Robin Page—that in respect of deserted and divorced wives, widows and single girls with children, one in four claims were fraudulent. This was untrue. A comprehensive survey in 1964 and 1965 suggested that under 7½ per cent. of claims from this group, whom one would have thought were particularly vulnerable to fraud, were false. From


recent random checks it seems unlikely that the present position is in any way worse than it was in 1965.
Voluntary unemployment is a field in which we have been very active. Many people who are unemployed apparently for no good reason are unemployed for reasons of physical or mental handicap and are virtually unemployable. Far from abusing social security, they are in need of welfare help, rehabilitation and training. It is grossly unfair of some members of the public and of some people like the hon. Member to repeat suggestions that all those who are unemployed and are receiving benefits are in some way scroungers and are not prepared to take work. This is not true. We have to be careful that we do not render great hardship to those people.
My right hon. Friend, when she was Minister of Social Security, introduced in July, 1968, a new procedure whereby, in parts of the country where there is employment available, single men of 45 and under were put on what was called "four weeks and off". It was recognised that they had to take employment. This has been a means of reducing scrounging in this field to a considerable extent, and this experiment by my right hon. Friend was very successful.
I do not want to minimise the significance of this small minority who seek to take advantage of the provisions of the Welfare State, but I want to make it clear that we are dealing with a very small minority and the number of cases have to be seen in the light of the whole breadth of service rendered by my Department, amounting in 1968 to 17 million claims for insurance and industrial injury benefits, 600,000 for family allowances and over 6 million for supplementary pensions and allowances.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Mr. Robin Page. He said that Mr. Page was dismissed because he disclosed information about the level of abuse of supplementary benefits which my right hon. Friend preferred to conceal. This is absolutely untrue. I wish to remind the House of the real reasons for Mr. Page's dismissal, and these I gave to the hon. Gentleman in reply to a Question from him on 8th December last year. Mr. Page deliberately broke important staff rules by sending for publication in the Press articles relating to the official

business of the Department without his obtaining authority from the Department.
I find it very surprising that any responsible Member of this House should suggest that it is right and proper for members of the Civil Service to decide to act on their own and to publish articles in a newspaper giving information purely on their own views and using information gained within the confidentiality that officers of the Social Security Department inevitably have. To suggest that policemen should use information gained in the course of their duties and should receive money from writing articles in the Press is absolutely absurd. This gentleman, Mr. Page, disclosed information acquired by reason of his official position and, in particular, information about individual claims, obtained in confidence in connection with such claims for supplementary benefit. It would be utterly unfair to other people who are in touch with the officers of the Social Security Department to think that the information they give could be revealed to the Press in the way that this was done. It was quite shocking behaviour.
In my Answer to the hon. Gentleman I said that Mr. Page was reminded of these rules on 6th October, after the publication of his first article, and again, in writing, on 29th October, after the publication of the second article on 25th October. Despite this, he published a further article which appeared in the Spectator dated 22nd November.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, in answer to a Question on 9th February, reiterated that Mr. Page was not dismissed for the views he expressed in his articles. He was dismissed because he broke the basic rule of the Civil Service that a person does not publish articles in the Press attacking the Department in which he serves.
It may very well be that from time to time a civil servant disagrees strongly with the policy his Department is pursuing. If he feels so strongly that he wishes publicly to ventilate his disagreement, his course of conduct is surely clear. He has a perfect right to resign in order to be free to publish his criticisms, provided he is careful not to publish in those criticisms information to which he could not have had access except as a civil servant.
It is intolerable for anyone to feel such confidence in his own righteousness that he is entitled to break the rules of the Civil Service confidence and at the same time stay in his job and denounce the Department in which he serves. I do not see how any Government could work if civil servants were permitted to behave in that way.
I find it extraordinary that the hon. Gentleman should suggest here that it is proper for junior civil servants to use their own judgment as to what they say, what they publish, what information gained confidentially they use. I should have thought that he, like every other hon. Member, would have stood by the independence of the Civil Service, and recognised that if his party had been in power no other action could possibly have been taken.
So far as I know, the Member of Parliament of Mr. Robin Page is satisfied with the situation. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has discussed it with him, and why he has chosen to raise matters in the way he has this evening. It was a great disservice to the cause of our Welfare State and of the benefits made avail-

able to those in need by the Supplementary Benefits Commission that the hon. Gentleman should use the prestige of his position and the prestige of the House to cast doubt upon the integrity of those who are seeking to do their job well, and who I believe are doing so. He has simply added his own weight to the rumour-mongering and scandal-making which inevitably some newspapers enjoy doing, but which is grossly unfair not only to the Commission and the way in which it is doing its duty but to the vast majority of people who are helped by it. When suggestions are made that we are dealing with abuse on a massive scale it is a deterrent to those genuine people who seek the help of the Commission. The suggestion that to go to the offices of the Supplementary Benefits Commission implies that they are scroungers or skivers is grossly unfair to them.
I very much deplore that the hon. Gentleman should have raised the points he did this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.